WILDLIFE TRAPS:
 Revised Monitoring Framework and 
Midterm Performance Assessment
This publication was prepared for review by the United States Agency for International Development by Environmental Incentives.
September 2018
Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 3
Front Cover (clockwise from left): 
Forensic analysis of ivory. Photo credit: Tools and Resources for Applied Conservation and Environment 
(TRACE). 
Emmanuel, a young Congolese Conservation Ranger with the Congolese Institute for Nature 
Conservation (ICCN) photographed in the Bukima Gorilla sector of Virunga National Park, Democratic 
Republic of Congo (DRC). Photo credit: © Brent Stirton/Reportage by Getty Images/World Wildlife 
Fund (WWF). 
Cover of the Wildlife TRAPS-produced assessment, Illegal Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn, 2014. Photo 
credit: naturepl.com/Andy Rouse/WWF-Canon. 
Participants engaged in the Wildlife TRAPS co-convened collaborative action planning (CAP) workshop, 
Changing Behaviour to Reduce Demand for Illegal Wildlife Products, Hong Kong, March 2016. Photo 
credit: TRAFFIC. 
Participants at a training with Etihad Airways. Photo credit: TRAFFIC.
Back Cover (clockwise from left): 
Black rhinoceros, close up of horns, Nairobi National Park, Kenya. Photo credit: © Michel Gunther/
WWF.
African elephant. Photo credit: © Martin Harvey/WWF.
Dried South African Abalone on sale in Hong Kong. Photo credit: © Markus Burgener/TRAFFIC.
Pangolin. Photo credit: © David Brossard.
PREPARED BY: Tess Present and Claire Price, Environmental Incentives, LLC
SUBMITTED BY
Elizabeth Lauck
Environmental Incentives, LLC
SUBMITTED TO
Colin Holmes, Contracting Officer’s Representative
USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment
Office of Forestry and Biodiversity
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency 
for International Development or the United States Government.
ABOUT MEASURING IMPACT
This work is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of its requisition # REQ￾EGAT-12-000014 (Measuring Impact) implemented by prime recipient Environmental Incentives, LLC 
with partners Foundations of Success and ICF. Measuring Impact has been issued under contract # AID￾OAA-C-12-00078 and supports the same program objectives as described in RFP # SOL-OAA-000050. 
Measuring Impact is funded and managed by the USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and 
Environment/Office of Forestry and Biodiversity.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................................6
II. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................................8
Overview Of the wildlife trAPS PrOject ..................................................................................................................................8
Two-Phase Approach of the Assessment .....................................................................................................................................9
III. PHASE 1: REVISION OF THE PROJECT MONITORING FRAMEWORK...................................... 10
Objective.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Methodology................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Revised Wildlife TRAPS Monitoring Framework................................................................................................................... 11
IV. PHASE 2: ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE – 
 OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 18
Objective.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Methodology................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
V. PHASE 2: ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE – FINDINGS.... 20
Assessment Question #1: To What Extent Have Outcomes Stated in the Revised Monitoring Framework
Been Achieved to Date?............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Assessment Question #2: Are There Particular Factors or Conditions That Have Impeded Progress or
Facilitated Success in Achieving Project Outcomes? ............................................................................................................ 45
Assessment Question #3: What Evidence Exists to Date of the Ability of Wildlife TRAPS to Influence or
Catalyze the Actions of Others in Combating Wildlife Trafficking?.............................................................................. 46
Assessment Question #4: Are There Particular Factors or Conditions That Have Impeded or Facilitated the
Ability of Wildlife TRAPS to Influence or Catalyze the Actions of Others in Combating Wildlife Trafficking?... 49
VI. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Assessment Question #1............................................................................................................................................................... 52
Assessment Question #2............................................................................................................................................................... 53
Assessment Question #3............................................................................................................................................................... 53
Assessment Question #4............................................................................................................................................................... 54
Further Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................... 54
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................. 56
ANNEX A: DETAILED WILDLIFE TRAPS REVISED MONITORING FRAMEWORK................... 60
ANNEX B: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW AND SURVEY QUESTIONS.......................................... 66
ANNEX C: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS................................................................................................................... 70
ANNEX D: COLLABORATIVELY DEFINED PRIORITY ACTIONS.......................................................... 71
4 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Wildlife TRAPS Key Results and Outcomes..................................................................................................................15
Table 2. Assessments Produced with Wildlife TRAPS Support and Available Dissemination Data..................................21
Table 3. Collaborative Action Planning (CAP) Workshops Co-Convened by Wildlife TRAPS.....................................27
Table 4. New Work Areas for Wildlife TRAPS Engagement with Stakeholders.................................................................27
Table 5. Implementation of Priority Combating Wildlife Trafficking (CWT) Actions Defined Through the
 CAP-Workshop Process....................................................................................................................................................30
Table 6. Characteristics of Activities Undertaken to Implement Priority CWT Actions Defined Through the
 CAP-Workshop Process....................................................................................................................................................31
Table 7. Stakeholder Organizations Engaged by Wildlife TRAPS............................................................................................33
Table 8. Key Stakeholder Organizations Participating in or Using Trainings, Materials, Professional Development
 Opportunities, and Collaboration and Communication Mechanisms Provided Through Wildlife TRAPS........36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Simple Generic Results Chain............................................................................................................................................11
Figure 2.  Wildlife TRAPS Results Chain..........................................................................................................................................12
Figure 3.   Number of Direct-Engagement Activities by Level of Wildlife TRAPS Influence in Each FiscalYear
 Across All Thematic Areas.................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 4.   Number of Direct-Engagement Activities by Level of Wildlife TRAPS Influence in Each Thematic Area
 Across All FiscalYears......................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 5.   Number of Wildlife TRAPS Direct-Engagement Activities by Type in Each FiscalYear Across All
 Thematic Areas.....................................................................................................................................................................25
Figure 6.  Number of Wildlife TRAPS Direct-Engagement Activities by Type in Each Thematic Area Across All
 FiscalYears...........................................................................................................................................................................25
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1. Using the Results Chain Approach to Develop the Wildlife TRAPS Revised Monitoring Framework...............11
Box 2. Categories of Wildlife TRAPS Influence.......................................................................................................................23
Box 3. Types of Wildlife TRAPS Direct-Engagement Activities.............................................................................................24
ACRONYMS
Africa-TWIX Africa Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange
BAA Broad Agency Announcement 
CAP Collaborative Action Planning
CARPE Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CWT Combating Wildlife Trafficking
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
E3 Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment 
ETIS Elephant Trade Information System
FAB Office of Forestry and Biodiversity
FIATA International Federation of Freight Forwarders Association
FY Fiscal Year
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICCWC International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime
IIED International Institute of Environment and Development
INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
MI Measuring Impact
MINFOF Ministry of Forests and Wildlife, Cameroon
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIAP National Ivory Action Plan
PIO Public International Organization
Q Quarter
RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia
RhODIS® Rhino DNA Index System®
ROUTES Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species
RUSI Royal United Services Institute
SBCC Social and Behavioral Change Communication
TAFFA Tanzania Freight Forwarders Association
TRACE Tools and Resources for Applied Conservation and Enforcement
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
USAID United States Agency for International Development
Wildlife TRAPS Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting
WCO World Customs Organization
WWF World Wildlife Fund
6 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 7
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting (Wildlife TRAPS) was launched in 2013 through a 
$1.5 million Public International Organization (PIO) agreement from the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3)/Office of Forestry and 
Biodiversity (FAB) to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Wildlife TRAPS is implemented 
by TRAFFIC, IUCN’s strategic partnership with World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In 2014, Wildlife TRAPS was 
extended to five years with a ceiling of $4.9 million. It was extended again in 2016 for another two years, moving 
the end date to 2020 with a total funding ceiling of $9 million. The majority of funding has been provided by E3/FAB 
with two USAID regional bureaus and six missions contributing funding: Bureau for Africa, Bureau for Latin America 
and the Caribbean, Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), East Africa Regional, Kenya, 
Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA), Southern Africa Regional, and Uganda.
To transform the ability and impact of stakeholders tackling wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia, Wildlife 
TRAPS seeks to increase recognition by authorities and multi-sectoral stakeholders that wildlife trafficking is a global 
issue that requires a multicountry, multi-sectoral, and multipartner response. Furthermore, it seeks to catalyze 
innovative approaches in combating wildlife trafficking and increased and continuing action by a broad array of 
diverse stakeholders through strengthened and non-traditional partnerships. Wildlife TRAPS is focusing its efforts to 
catalyze the actions of others to combat wildlife trafficking and build sustainable stakeholder networks for continued 
action in six global sectors or project thematic areas: Financial Sector, Transportation Sector, Demand Reduction, 
Law Enforcement, Wildlife Forensics, and Community Engagement.
USAID enlisted Measuring Impact (MI) to conduct a midterm assessment of Wildlife TRAPS through a two-phase 
approach. In the first phase, the assessment team reviewed the existing project1
 theory of change and performance 
management plan and revised as necessary to ensure that project outcomes were fully and accurately defined and 
could be captured through monitoring of appropriate indicators. Through Phase 1, the assessment team developed 
a revised project monitoring framework2 against which progress and performance could be assessed in Phase 2. 
Phase 2 focused on answering four questions:
1. To what extent have outcomes stated in the revised monitoring framework been achieved to date?
2. Are there particular factors or conditions that have impeded progress or facilitated success in achieving project 
outcomes?
3. What evidence exists to date of the ability of Wildlife TRAPS to influence or catalyze the actions of others in 
combating wildlife trafficking?
4. Are there particular factors or conditions that have impeded or facilitated the ability of Wildlife TRAPS to 
influence or catalyze the actions of others in combating wildlife trafficking?
To answer the assessment questions, MI assessors retrospectively compiled data from project documents and 
gathered input from key informants.
The Wildlife TRAPS revised monitoring framework includes outcomes for eight key results that span the Wildlife 
TRAPS results chain, from initial outputs to desired outcomes beyond Wildlife TRAPS’ manageable interest. There 
is evidence that progress is being made on achieving the outcomes defined for all key results, but the strength of 
that evidence varies across the key results. Based on key informant input, factors particularly important to Wildlife 
TRAPS achieving its outcomes include: the flexibility afforded by the PIO funding mechanism and the way it is 
managed by USAID, the collaborative mind-set and technical expertise of TRAFFIC staff, and TRAFFIC’s stature as 
a thought leader and well-respected, neutral voice in the global dialogue on wildlife crime. However, key informants 
also suggested that Wildlife TRAPS could better communicate what it is doing, what it has achieved in each thematic 
area, and how this work could inform ongoing and future work by stakeholders. This may increase the extent to 
which stakeholders can build upon the work of Wildlife TRAPS and its results achieved to date.
1 Wildlife TRAPS is technically an activity in USAID parlance. It is referred to as a project in this assessment to avoid confusion among 
 external stakeholders.
2 The project monitoring framework is comprised of the project’s theory of change depicted as a results chain with outcome statements 
 and indicators for key results.
Through its many activities and products, Wildlife TRAPS is influencing what stakeholders are doing to reduce 
wildlife trafficking, how they are doing it, and with whom they are working. The technical information and 
expertise provided through assessments and other resources have been useful to many stakeholders in improving 
their understanding of the background and context for an issue, establishing priorities for their work, refining 
strategic approaches, improving the effectiveness of their work, and identifying opportunities for collaboration. 
Wildlife TRAPS’ efforts to involve new stakeholders and build and strengthen connections between stakeholders 
has led to new and stronger collaborations within countries, between regions, and across continents, and also 
across the diverse sectors that interface with wildlife crime. However, multiple key informants did not know 
that the TRAFFIC personnel they were working with, the resources they were using, or the activities they were 
involved in were part of the work encompassed by Wildlife TRAPS. 
There is growing evidence that Wildlife TRAPS has had a catalytic effect, defined either as (1) actions 
implemented by stakeholders that build upon the work of Wildlife TRAPS but without its support, or (2) 
activities and events that key informants relayed were precipitated by Wildlife TRAPS activities. The ability of 
Wildlife TRAPS to influence and catalyze stakeholder efforts to reduce illegal wildlife trade has benefited from 
the increasing global resonance of wildlife trafficking as a multi-sectoral issue and TRAFFIC’s stature among 
stakeholders. Key informant feedback suggests that continued socialization, reinforcement, and refinement of 
collaboratively defined priority actions may enhance Wildlife TRAPS’ ability to influence and catalyze stakeholders 
to implement those actions. It also may be timely to reassess the scope of Wildlife TRAPS and tighten its focus 
on those areas where it has the greatest potential to effect change before project end. 
In summary, to date:
•	 Wildlife TRAPS has undertaken an impressive number and diversity of activities to engage more than 150 
stakeholder organizations across its work in six thematic areas. 
•	 Through its influence and catalytic effect, new stakeholders, new partnerships, new programs, and innovative, 
multi-sectoral approaches are being brought to bear in the fight against illegal wildlife trade. 
•	 Wildlife TRAPS’ progress and successes are testament to the effectiveness of project personnel, management, 
and design. 
In the spirit of continuous improvement, this assessment revealed some opportunities for Wildlife TRAPS to 
further enhance the influence and catalytic effect of its work. Six general recommendations emerged:
1. Reassess and refine as necessary the strategic focus of Wildlife TRAPS as it nears completion.
2. Frame stakeholder discussion and project communications around Wildlife TRAPS’ intended outcomes and 
increase overall communication of activities, outputs, and outcomes.
3. Cultivate the identity of Wildlife TRAPS as an initiative separate from other TRAFFIC and stakeholder 
initiatives.
4. Assess whether there are characteristics of other initiatives focused on achieving large-scale, collective impact 
that would be useful to incorporate into Wildlife TRAPS.
5. Implement a systematic approach to monitoring outputs and outcomes that is aligned with the Wildlife 
TRAPS revised monitoring framework, and regularly review progress to extract lessons learned and inform 
adaptive management.
6. Refine the revised monitoring framework based on findings of this assessment and continue to refine as the 
project evolves.
Possible specific actions that could be undertaken to implement each recommendation are provided in the main 
body of this report. 
8 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 9
II. INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Wildlife TRAPS Project
The Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting (Wildlife TRAPS) project3 was launched 
in 2013 through a $1.5 million Public International Organization (PIO) agreement from the United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment 
(E3)/Forestry and Biodiversity Office (FAB) to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 
Wildlife TRAPS is implemented by TRAFFIC, IUCN’s strategic partnership with World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 
In 2014, Wildlife TRAPS was extended to five years with a ceiling of $4.9 million. It was extended again in 2016 
for another two years, moving the end date to 2020 with a total funding ceiling of $9 million. The majority of 
funding has been provided by E3/FAB with two USAID regional bureaus and six missions contributing funding: 
Bureau for Africa, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Africa Regional Program for the 
Environment (CARPE), East Africa Regional, Kenya, Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA), Southern 
Africa Regional, and Uganda.
The 2014 Wildlife TRAPS Revised Framework Approach document established the vision, goal, objectives, and 
overall approach for the project. It states that Wildlife TRAPS seeks “to achieve a transformation in the ability 
and impact of stakeholders4 tackling wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia.” To achieve this transformation, 
Wildlife TRAPS seeks to increase recognition by authorities and multi-sectoral stakeholders that wildlife 
trafficking is a global issue that requires a multicountry, multi-sectoral, and multipartner response. Furthermore, 
it seeks to catalyze innovative approaches in combating wildlife trafficking and increased and continued action by 
a broad array of diverse stakeholders through strengthened and non-traditional partnerships. 
The stated goal for the project is to: “Protect global biodiversity from the threat of illegal wildlife trade through 
strengthening the knowledge base, resolve and cooperation of governments, intergovernmental organizations, 
the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in tackling wildlife trafficking between Africa 
and Asia.” To achieve this goal, three objectives were defined:
1. To improve understanding of the status of and trends in trans-continental illegal wildlife trade, with a 
focus on trade routes for threatened species trafficked between Africa and Asia;
2. To increase international collaborations around actions to reduce and control illegal wildlife trade 
between Africa and Asia; and 
3. To identify, inform, and facilitate the efforts of national government and inter-governmental, NGOs, 
and private sector collaborators affected by illegal wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia, in 
implementing effective strategies to combat it. 
The project is implemented through a three-phase approach: 
Phase I - Assessment and Priority Setting, during which assessment and analysis of targeted issues is 
conducted to improve stakeholder understanding of the status of and trends in wildlife trafficking and identify 
where action is needed;
Phase II - Collaborative Action Planning, during which stakeholders are convened to design and 
prioritize actions that need to be taken based on the assessment findings; and
3 Wildlife TRAPS is technically an activity in USAID parlance. It is referred to as a project in this assessment to avoid confusion among
external stakeholders.
4
 In the context of the project, stakeholders are government, intergovernmental, civil society, and private-sector actors who have, or
could play, a role in combating illegal wildlife trade within and between Africa and Asia.
Phase III - Respond and Review, during which Wildlife TRAPS will support stakeholder implementation 
of the prioritized actions defined through collaborative action planning.
As it takes time to convene collaborative action planning processes and for stakeholders to implement 
collaboratively defined actions, Wildlife TRAPS as well initiated activities to begin to address needs identified in 
the assessments before collaborative action planning could be completed and stakeholder implementation could 
begin.
In fiscal year 2015 (FY 2015), after some experience with each of the three phases, Wildlife TRAPS defined 
six work streams to focus its work: (1) engaging the transportation sector, (2) strengthening law enforcement 
capacity and interagency collaboration between Africa and Asia, (3) engaging the financial sector and improving 
financial investigative capacity to recover the proceeds of illegal wildlife trade, (4) support to emerging 
wildlife forensics labs in Africa and Asia, (5) demand reduction activities, and (6) exploring the links between 
communities and illegal wildlife trade. Going forward, these work streams defined the six thematic areas around 
which Wildlife TRAPS structured its work: Transportation Sector, Law Enforcement, Financial Sector, Wildlife 
Forensics, Demand Reduction, and Community Engagement.
Two-Phase Approach of the Assessment
USAID enlisted Measuring Impact (MI) to conduct a midterm assessment of the Wildlife TRAPS project. The project 
leadership team5 recognized that the existing project monitoring plan and theory of change did not adequately 
encompass the envisioned outcomes of the project and so decided to have a two-phase approach to the assessment.
In the first phase, the assessment team reviewed the existing project theory of change and performance 
management plan and revised as necessary to ensure that project outcomes were fully and accurately defined 
and could be captured through monitoring of appropriate indicators. Through Phase 1, MI assessors developed 
a revised project monitoring framework6
 against which project progress and performance could be assessed. In 
the second phase, the assessment team assessed progress and performance against the revised theory of change 
and its associated outcomes.
5 For this assessment, the project leadership team is considered comprised of the Wildlife TRAPS Project Lead and USAID Wildlife TRAPS 
co-managers.
6 The project monitoring framework is comprised of the project’s theory of change depicted as a results chain with outcome statements 
and indicators for key results.
10 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 11
III. PHASE 1: REVISION OF THE PROJECT MONITORING 
FRAMEWORK
Objective
The objective of Phase 1 was to review and make necessary revisions to the project’s theory of change and in 
the indicators being monitored. The review sought to determine whether (1) the project’s theory of change 
fully and accurately captured intended outcomes and key assumptions, and whether it aligned with the project’s 
stated objectives and approaches; and (2) whether current indicators were adequate to assess project progress 
towards intended outcomes and to assess the validity of key assumptions in the theory of change.
The output of Phase 1 is a revised project monitoring framework comprised of the articulation of the project’s 
theory of change as a narrative and a results chain, and the outcome statements and indicators defined for all 
key results identified in the project results chain. 
Ivory market in central Africa. Photo credit: TRAFFIC.
Methodology
Application of the Results Chain Approach
Phase 1 began with a review by the MI assessors of the project’s existing theory of change and design 
documents.7
 The assessment team appraised the adequacy of the project’s then-current theory of change and 
monitoring plan by determining how well they aligned with best practices for the design of USAID biodiversity 
programming as defined in the USAID Biodiversity How-To Guide 2: Using Results Chains to Depict Theories of Change 
in USAID Biodiversity Programming and How-To Guide 3: Defining Outcomes and Indicators for Monitoring, Evaluation, 
and Learning in USAID Biodiversity Programming. The review uncovered severe gaps in the project’s theory of 
change, a lack of measurable stated outcomes, and indicators focused almost entirely on project outputs rather 
than outcomes. The project leadership team and MI assessors agreed to use the results chain approach provided 
in the USAID Biodiversity How-To Guides and USAID’s Program Cycle How-To Note: Developing a Project Logic 
Model (and its Associated Theory of Change) to develop a robust theory of change for the project and measurable 
outcome statements with associated indicators. See Box 1 on page 11 for a brief overview of the results chain 
process used to develop the Wildlife TRAPS revised monitoring framework.
The theory of change for Wildlife TRAPS was developed for the project as a whole rather than for each of the 
intertwined, overlapping, and reinforcing strategic approaches it was implementing (i.e., research, relationship 
building, capacity building, etc.). In other words, the theory of change was developed for how the collective 
implementation of the project’s strategic approaches would lead to intended outcomes. The project results 
chain was developed collaboratively with the project leadership team through many discussions; it was informed 
by MI review of all available project design documents, work plans, and quarterly and annual progress reports. 
7 These documents included the 2012 Wildlife TRAPS Framework Approach, 2014 Wildlife TRAPS Revised Framework Approach, and the 
2016 Wildlife TRAPS Revised Monitoring Plan.
Box 1. Using the Results Chain Approach to Develop the Wildlife TRAPS Revised 
Monitoring Framework
A results chain is a graphic depiction of a theory of change that displays the assumed causal relationships 
between what a program intends to do and the changes and results it expects to produce. A generic results 
chain is depicted in Figure 1 below and may be read as a series of “if-then” statements such as “If Strategic 
Approach A is implemented then Result 1 will be achieved, if Result 1 is achieved then Result 2 will follow, 
if Result 2 is achieved then the specified threat will be reduced, resulting in the improved status of the 
specified species, ecosystem, etc.” Arrows depict assumptions made by the program team.
Figure 1. Simple Generic Results Chain
Once the sequence of a program’s intended results is depicted in a results chain, the program design team 
identifies “key results” or those that are most important to monitor because their achievement depends on 
the validity of a critical assumption or they are required for program reporting or some other monitoring 
need. After the key results are identified, measurable outcome statements are developed for each along 
with the indicators that should be monitored to track progress in achieving the stated outcome.
Revised Wildlife TRAPS Monitoring Framework
Theory of Change and Key Assumptions
The Wildlife TRAPS theory of change is depicted as a results chain in Figure 2 (see page 12) and provided 
as a narrative below. Results depicted within Wildlife TRAPS’ manageable interest are those for which it is 
accountable by end of project. Wildlife TRAPS will contribute to results outside of its manageable interest, but 
achievement of these results requires continued actions by stakeholders after the project ends.
Wildlife TRAPS aims to catalyze actions to combat wildlife trafficking and build sustainable stakeholder networks 
for continued action in six global sectors or project thematic areas: Financial Sector, Transportation Sector, 
Demand Reduction, Law Enforcement, Wildlife Forensics, and Community Engagement. Wildlife TRAPS’ 
theory of change begins with identifying needs for action through conducting assessments and engaging and 
influencing stakeholders, including key stakeholders8
 or those with high influence in their sector. Wildlife TRAPS 
engages and influences stakeholders through activities9
 it convenes, advises, or engages in as a participant. As a 
result of their engagement with Wildlife TRAPS, stakeholders will undertake activities throughout and beyond 
the project, and key stakeholders will begin to influence others in their network to undertake activities to 
combat wildlife trafficking. Once Wildlife TRAPS is engaging with stakeholders, resources will be developed to 
enable those stakeholders to implement needed counter-trafficking activities. These resources include sector￾specific trainings, professional development opportunities, materials, and mechanisms to enable stakeholder 
communication and collaboration.
8 Key stakeholders are individuals and entities with high influence in their sector (e.g., industry associations, regulatory bodies, champions 
in the relevant thematic area, strategic partners, etc.), as defined by project staff.
9 For the purposes of this assessment, the term “activities” refers to the interventions, tasks, or other conservation efforts implemented 
through Wildlife TRAPS or by stakeholders.
12 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 13
Wildlife TRAPS Manageable Interest
Needs for 
CWT action 
identified and 
disseminated
Key Result 1
Reduced wildlife 
trafficking between 
Africa & Asia
Reduced illegal 
harvest of wildlife
Stakeholders engaged 
with and influenced by 
Wildlife TRAPS
Wildlife TRAPS￾convened* activities
Wildlife TRAPS co￾convened** activities
Wildlife TRAPS￾advised*** activities
Wildlife TRAPS￾participated**** 
activities
Key Result 2
Actions prioritized 
through CAP 
Workshops
Actions prioritized 
outside the CAP 
Workshop process
Needed CWT actions are 
prioritized by stakeholders
Key Result 3
Thematic area-specific 
mechanisms*** in 
place to enable 
network stakeholders 
to communicate and 
collaborate
Thematic area-specific 
materials* available
Thematic 
area-specific 
trainings offered
Thematic area￾specific professional 
development 
opportunities** 
available
Stakeholders enabled to implement 
needed CWT actions
Key Result 6
Actions implemented through 
Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans
Actions implemented as a result 
of action prioritization AND 
funded through Wildlife TRAPS, 
but not included in Wildlife 
TRAPS work plan
Actions implemented as a result 
of action prioritization BUT 
NOT funded through 
Wildlife TRAPS
Priority CWT actions 
are implemented
Key Result 4
Financial sector
Transportation sector
Demand reduction
Law enforcement
Wildlife forensics
Community engagement
Desired outcomes from 
CWT actions achieved
Key Result 8
Stakeholder 
networks in each 
Wildlife TRAPS 
thematic area are 
sustainable and 
continue to take 
action to reduce 
wildlife trafficking
Key Result 7
Wildlife 
TRAPS
Illegal wildlife trade routes 
between Africa and Asia
Terrestrial mega￾fauna (African Elephant, 
African rhinos)
Terrestrial fauna 
(Pangolins) 
High-value 
marine species (South 
African Abalone)
Key stakeholders 
engaged in 
CWT activities 
with Wildlife 
TRAPS and 
influencing others
Key Result 5
Direct Threat Reduction Strategic 
Approach
Biodiversity 
Focal Interest Expected Result
Legend
Figure 2. Wildlife TRAPS Results Chain. Wildlife TRAPS’ manageable interest encompasses results for which the project is 
accountable for achieving by project end. “CWT” denotes combating wildlife trafficking. Asterisked (*) words are defined in the 
Detailed Wildlife TRAPS Revised Monitoring Framework in Annex A.
14 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 15
If needs for action are identified and stakeholders engage in Wildlife TRAPS activities to prioritize those 
actions, then those actions needed to combat wildlife trafficking will be collaboratively prioritized by 
stakeholders for implementation. If actions are collaboratively prioritized, then they will be implemented 
through Wildlife TRAPS’ activities and through stakeholders’ activities not included in Wildlife TRAPS’ work 
plans. Here it is assumed that stakeholders will be motivated to implement the prioritized actions based on 
their engagement with Wildlife TRAPS, influence from key stakeholders, and having resources available. As 
priority actions are implemented, further assessments may be conducted, further stakeholder engagement with 
Wildlife TRAPS may result, key stakeholder engagement and influence may increase, and further resources to 
enable stakeholder action may be developed.
With stakeholders implementing priority actions and having the resources to enable their continued action, and 
with key stakeholders actively influencing others in their respective network to undertake activities to reduce 
wildlife trafficking, Wildlife TRAPS will have accomplished the results within its manageable interest. The Wildlife 
TRAPS theory of change assumes that if these results have been achieved, then stakeholder networks in each 
of Wildlife TRAPS’ six thematic areas will be sustainable and continue to implement the priority actions defined 
through the project, leading to the achievement of desired outcomes towards which Wildlife TRAPS was 
working. If these desired outcomes are achieved, then there will be reduced trafficking between Africa and Asia, 
reduced illegal harvest of wildlife, and ultimately an improvement in the global status of key wildlife.
There are four key assumptions in the Wildlife TRAPS theory of change, the validity of which will dictate if the 
project’s vision to catalyze actions to combat wildlife trafficking and to build sustainable stakeholder networks 
for continued action will be realized. They are:
1. The project will influence stakeholder efforts to combat wildlife trafficking through its various 
engagement activities.
2. As a result of the project’s influence, key stakeholders will influence if and how others in their 
respective networks engage in efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. 
3. As a result of the project’s or key stakeholder’s influence and the collaborative prioritization of actions 
to reduce wildlife trafficking, the collaboratively defined priority actions will be implemented in part 
through stakeholder activities catalyzed by the stakeholder’s engagement with Wildlife TRAPS but not 
part of Wildlife TRAPS’ work plans.
4. As a result of stakeholders implementing priority actions, key stakeholders actively influencing others in 
their network to undertake activities to reduce wildlife trafficking, and resources to enable stakeholder 
action being provided, the network of stakeholders for each thematic area will be sustainable and 
continue to take action in combating wildlife trafficking beyond the life of Wildlife TRAPS.
The degree to which these assumptions are valid is explored in Phase 2 findings in this assessment.
Key Results and Outcome Statements
Figure 2 (see page 12) depicts the key results identified in the project’s result chain. For the purposes of this 
assessment, all the interim results in the results chain immediately within Wildlife TRAPS’ manageable interest 
and just beyond were identified as key results, and outcome statements and indicators were developed for each.
The key results and their associated outcome statements are summarized in Table 1 on page 15. The indicators 
associated with each outcome statement, indicator disaggregates, and detailed explanation of asterisked terms 
in various outcome statements are provided in Annex A. During development of the revised monitoring 
framework with the project leadership team, there were some uncertainties about the appropriateness and 
usefulness of some indicators and outcome statements. These are marked as tentative in the detailed framework 
found in Annex A. It was intended that these would be revised as needed based on the experience of using the 
framework for this assessment and the findings that emerged. Suggestions for revising the tentative elements of 
the monitoring framework are provided in the recommendations of this assessment.
Table 1: Wildlife TRAPS Key Results and Outcomes. Associated indicators, indicator disaggregates, and definitions 
of asterisked (*) words are provided in the Detailed Wildlife TRAPS Monitoring Framework in Annex A. “CWT” denotes 
combating wildlife trafficking.
Key Result Outcome Statement(s)
1. Needs for CWT action identified 
and disseminated
1. Throughout the project, Wildlife TRAPS is responsive* to the needs of the global 
community for information to direct action in combating wildlife trafficking. 
2. Stakeholders engaged with 
 and influenced by Wildlife 
 TRAPS
2. Wildlife TRAPS convenes and participates in the global dialogue on wildlife 
trafficking such that there is evidence* that Wildlife TRAPS is increasingly 
influencing the activities of stakeholders in combating wildlife trafficking.
3. Needed CWT actions are 
prioritized by stakeholders
3.1. By the end of the project, Wildlife TRAPS has convened a Collaborative Action 
Planning (CAP) Workshop in at least four thematic areas that result in published 
recommendations of priority actions to combat wildlife trafficking.
3.2. Throughout the project, new work areas for priority CWT action are initiated 
with stakeholders outside of a CAP process in response to emerging issues and 
opportunities.
4. Priority CWT actions are 
 implemented
4.1. Throughout Wildlife TRAPS, priority CWT actions* are being implemented (a) 
through Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans, (b) as a result of action prioritization, and
funded* through Wildlife TRAPS but not included in Wildlife TRAPS work plans, and 
(c) as a result of action prioritization, but not funded through Wildlife TRAPS.
4.2. By the end of the project, there is evidence* of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing 
catalytic effect on implementation of priority CWT actions* by others.
5. Key stakeholders in each Wildlife 
TRAPS thematic area are engaged 
in CWT activities with Wildlife 
TRAPS and influencing others in 
their respective networks
5. By the end of the project, key* stakeholders in each thematic area are engaged in 
CWT activities with Wildlife TRAPS and there is evidence* that they are increasing 
the number and connectivity of others in their respective networks that are 
engaging in CWT.
6. Stakeholders enabled to 
implement needed CWT actions
By the end of the project, in each thematic area (as appropriate):
6.1. Thematic area-specific trainings have been offered and key stakeholders have 
participated;
6.2. Thematic area-specific materials* for improved practice are available, and being 
used by key stakeholders; 
6.3. Thematic area-specific professional development opportunities* are available, 
and being used by key stakeholders; and 
6.4. Mechanism(s)* in place for stakeholders in the thematic area network to 
communicate and collaborate, and being used by key stakeholders.
7. Stakeholder networks in each 
Wildlife TRAPS thematic area are 
sustainable and continue to take 
action to reduce wildlife trafficking
7. By the end of the project, member(s) of stakeholder networks in each thematic 
area are planning or implementing CWT actions that continue or expand upon 
Wildlife TRAPS work plan activities and are doing so without funding* from Wildlife 
TRAPS.
8. Desired Outcomes from CWT 
Actions Achieved - Cross 
Thematic (XC)
By the end of the project, in each thematic area:
XC 8.1. All prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented through Wildlife 
TRAPS annual work plans are completed*;
XC 8.2. All prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented with Wildlife 
TRAPS funding but were not included in Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans are 
completed* or show evidence of being near completion*; and
XC 8.3. There is evidence that some prioritized* CWT actions that have been 
implemented without Wildlife TRAPS funding are near completion*.
16 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 17
Key Result Outcome Statement(s)
8. Desired Outcomes from CWT 
Actions Achieved - Demand 
Reduction (DR)
By the end of the project, 
DR 8.1. Messaging for target audiences identified for future focus is improved; and
DR 8.2. There is evidence of reduced demand for illegal products.
8. Desired Outcomes from 
CWT Actions Achieved – Law 
Enforcement (LE)
By the end of the project,
LE 8.1. NIAP countries in Central Africa will have improved compliance and 
transparency with the CITES process;
LE 8.2. Cross-border and trans-continental coordination in wildlife crime 
investigations among NIAP countries in Central Africa will be improved;
LE 8.3. In enforcement agencies in NIAP countries in Central Africa, critical capacity 
gaps in (a) data and information sharing, (b) specialized enforcement techniques, 
and (c) stockpile management, will be filled;
LE 8.4. Multi-agency units will be in place at X ports to strengthen port 
transparency, screening, and security; and
LE 8.5. In at least one jurisdiction where judiciary training was provided as a result 
of Wildlife TRAPS action prioritization, there is evidence of increased effectiveness 
in the prosecution of wildlife crime cases.
8. Desired Outcomes from 
CWT Actions Achieved – 
Transportation Sector (TR)
By the end of the project, 
TR 8.1. Wildlife trafficking will be incorporated into select industry standards, 
practices, and protocols;
TR 8.2. Awareness of wildlife transport laws, policies, and industry guidelines will be 
increased in targeted transport sector audiences;
TR 8.3. Targeted transport sector companies and ports have amended their training 
programs to address gaps in staff knowledge in detecting and reporting of wildlife 
trafficking incidents; and
TR 8.4. Targeted transport sector companies have the internal mechanisms, 
protocols, and systems in place needed for personnel to report wildlife trafficking 
incidents.
8. Desired Outcomes from CWT 
Actions Achieved – Wildlife 
Forensics (FOR)
By the end of the project, 
FOR 8.1. A robust and scientifically compliant reference sample database for 
species in trade is developed; and
FOR 8.2. Uptake and utilization of forensic science in law enforcement efforts is 
improved.
8. Desired Outcomes from CWT 
Actions Achieved – Financial 
Sector (FIN)
By the end of the project,
FIN 8.1. International financial institutions improve systems to enable better 
reporting and investigation of wildlife crime offenders between financial institutions 
and investigative and asset recovery units; and
FIN 8.2. Countries’ abilities to seize and recover assets from middlemen and 
kingpins are improved.
8. Desired Outcomes from CWT 
Actions Achieved – Community 
Engagement (CE)
CE 8.1. Throughout the project, there is an increasing number of projects 
developed using the Beyond Enforcement methodology.
18 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 19
IV. PHASE 2: ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROGRESS AND 
PERFORMANCE – OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY
Objective
The revised monitoring framework (theory of change, outcome statements, and indicators) from Phase 1 
provided the framework for Phase 2 of the Wildlife TRAPS assessment. Phase 2 focused in part on assessing 
the progress that Wildlife TRAPS has made in achieving the outcomes in the revised monitoring framework and 
identifying factors or conditions that are potentially affecting project progress. Also, because Wildlife TRAPS’ 
theory of change assumes the project will influence and catalyze stakeholder actions, Phase 2 also assessed if 
there is evidence of Wildlife TRAPS’ influence and catalytic effect, and which factors potentially affect its ability 
to influence or catalyze stakeholder actions to reduce wildlife trafficking. In initial discussions, MI assessors and 
the project leadership team hoped the assessment would be able to explore the effectiveness of various Wildlife 
TRAPS activities in achieving desired outcomes, but the monitoring to date has not produced the data needed to 
assess effectiveness. 
The assessment sought to answer four specific questions:
1. To what extent have outcomes stated in the revised monitoring framework been achieved to date?
2. Are there particular factors or conditions that have impeded progress or facilitated success in achieving 
project outcomes?
3. What evidence exists to date of the ability of Wildlife TRAPS to influence or catalyze the actions of 
others in combating wildlife trafficking?
4. Are there particular factors or conditions that have impeded or facilitated the ability of Wildlife TRAPS 
to influence or catalyze the actions of others in combating wildlife trafficking?
Methodology
In Phase 2, to answer the assessment questions, the assessment team retrospectively compiled data from project 
documents and gathered input from key informants.10
 
Compilation of Retrospective Project Data
MI assessors retrospectively compiled data from FY 2013 to Quarter (Q)1 FY 2018 project documents, 
including quarterly and annual reports, workshop proceedings, post-workshop surveys of participants, and 
annual work plans. The assessment team developed a data collection tool that was aligned with the revised 
monitoring framework and used to capture data and information gleaned from the project documents. The 
assessment team captured multiple types of information during document review, including descriptive details 
on all activities that Wildlife TRAPS undertook and reported; the type of activity and relevant thematic area; the 
fiscal year(s) an activity was undertaken and completed and whether it was in the corresponding work plan(s); 
stakeholders involved; the extent of Wildlife TRAPS influence; and the type of Wildlife TRAPS support provided. 
Wildlife TRAPS staff reviewed and validated all data collected before analysis. 
Gathering of Key Informant Feedback
MI assessors developed interview and survey questions for key informants (see Annex B) with the project 
leadership team which also identified a list of key informants that included individuals who had worked with 
Wildlife TRAPS in a specific thematic area (all thematic areas were represented), were involved with project 
management and implementation, and/or were affiliated with USAID missions that had contributed funding to 
the project (see Annex C). Fourteen key informants participated in interviews, two submitted written responses 
to the interview questions, and two completed surveys (including one who was interviewed as well). 
10 Key informants are individuals who agreed to be interviewed or who provided written responses to the survey.
Data Limitations
Retrospectively compiled data. The accuracy and completeness of this data depends on the 
completeness of reporting in project documents and the accuracy of interpretation of the available information. 
MI assessors consulted with the Wildlife TRAPS Project Lead throughout the data-compilation process to 
validate the completeness and accuracy of the data. However, given the scope of project activities and the 
nature of project records to date, it is possible that the data used in the assessment is incomplete and/or has 
been interpreted incorrectly. Thus, findings should not be viewed as comprehensive but indicative of project 
activities and progress. 
Feedback from key informants. Due to time and budget constraints and limited availability of targeted 
key informants, feedback was obtained from no more than two informants per thematic area. Mission input was 
obtained from only one person in three of the six missions that contributed funding. The input received cannot 
be considered as representing a thematic area or mission as a whole.
20 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 21
V. PHASE 2: ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PROGRESS AND 
PERFORMANCE – FINDINGS
Assessment Question #1: To What Extent Have Outcomes Stated in the Revised 
Monitoring Framework Been Achieved to Date?
For each key result within the manageable interest of the Wildlife TRAPS project (Key Results 1-6), findings 
derived from analysis of the retrospectively compiled data and from key informant feedback are discussed in 
turn. Key Results 7 and 8 are outside the manageable interest of Wildlife TRAPS; findings were derived for each 
as discussed below.
Key Result 1. Needs for combating wildlife trafficking (CWT) action identified and 
disseminated.
Outcome Statement: 
Throughout the project, Wildlife TRAPS is responsive* to the needs of the global community for information to 
direct action in combating wildlife trafficking.
*Responsive is defined as: collects and analyzes needed data and makes information available through multiple channels.
Findings:
Analysis of retrospective data. Nine assessments have been completed to date with Wildlife TRAPS support 
(see Table 2 on page 21). Six assessments focus on the illegal trade in specific species or species products: ivory 
(2), rhino horn (jointly considered with ivory in one assessment), pangolins (2), and South African Abalone (2). 
Three assessments provide analyses of wildlife trafficking in specific geographies: Kenya (1), Democratic Republic 
of Congo and Central African Republic Garamba-Bili-Chinko transboundary landscape (1), and Uganda (1). The 
assessments were undertaken to address recognized gaps in the understanding of the status, trends, drivers, 
and impacts of wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia. Three USAID missions (CARPE, Kenya, and Uganda) 
contributed funding explicitly for the development of the Garamba-Bili-Chinko transboundary landscape, Kenya, 
and Uganda assessments, respectively.
Wildlife TRAPS developed and implemented dissemination plans for each assessment, but the project initially did 
not systematically monitor audience response and uptake. With the hire of a Communications Officer in 2017 
(half time to Wildlife TRAPS), that became possible. Data for all assessments on online views and downloads 
is provided in Table 2 (see page 21) along with data on media coverage for assessments published in 2017 
and 2018. Wildlife TRAPS recently began tracking data on social media sharing, starting with the 2018 Uganda 
Wildlife Trafficking Assessment. This assessment was shared more than 93,700 times on Twitter and 1,213,200 
times on Facebook, with Africa Geographic having the most shares on both platforms.
Key informant feedback: 
• Nearly all key informants relayed that the assessments are highly valuable and have been used by 
themselves as well as colleagues. In addition to deepening their understanding of wildlife trafficking status 
and issues, key informants have used assessments to prioritize work areas, plan new work, identify 
potential partners, inform other assessments (e.g., International Consortium on Combating Wildlife 
Crime [ICCWC]; Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act), inform proposals or calls 
for proposals, and inform presentations.
• Having the assessments done through Wildlife TRAPS has reduced the need for stakeholder 
organizations to do their own. This reduces redundancy and streamlines work.
• Having ready access to the assessment findings is important. The willingness of researchers and the 
project team lead to discuss findings and provide briefings is valuable, as is having access to assessment 
findings before they are published. Multiple key informants noted the difficulty they have in locating 
the assessments online, as a simple search by project name yielded limited and mostly outdated and 
irrelevant information.
Table 2: Assessments Produced with Wildlife TRAPS Support and Available Dissemination Data. Assess￾ments listed in reverse chronological order of publication date. ND – no data. Source of dissemination data: Wildlife Traps 
Project Lead, May 2018.
Assessment Title (Year)
# Page Views 
on TRAFFIC 
Website
# Downloads 
from 
TRAFFIC 
Website
# Media 
Hits
# Twitter 
Shares
[top 5 
sites]
# Facebook 
Shares
[top 5 sites]
Uganda Wildlife Trafficking Assessment
(2018) 527 117 14 93,700+ 1,213,200
An assessment of South African dried 
abalone Haliotis midae consumption and 
trade in Hong Kong (2018)
531 222 23 ND ND
The Global Trafficking of Pangolins: A 
comprehensive summary of seizures and 
trafficking routes from 2010-2015 (2017)
1373 576 10 ND ND
An Assessment of Poaching and Wildlife 
Trafficking in the Garamba-Bili-Chinko 
Transboundary Landscape (2017)
705 190 11 ND ND
Ivory Markets in Central Africa Market 
Surveys in Cameroon, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo and Gabon: 2007, 2009, 2014/2015
(2017)
1419 346 11 ND ND
Observations of the Illegal Pangolin Trade in 
LAO PDR (2016) 859 48 ND ND ND
Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment 
in Kenya Drivers and trends for transnational 
crime in Kenya and its role as a transit point 
for trafficked species in East Africa (2016)
2768 72 ND ND ND
South Africa’s Illicit Abalone Trade: An updated 
overview and knowledge gap analysis (2014) 1503 46 ND ND ND
Illegal Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn: An 
assessment to improve law enforcement 
under the Wildlife TRAPS Project (2014)
1651 84 ND ND ND
22 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 23
• The nature, status, and impacts of wildlife trafficking criminal activities change rapidly. The value of 
assessments would increase if they were produced more quickly and if data was updated and shared 
more frequently.
• Due to the technical and logistical difficulty of the Garamba-Bili-Chinko transboundary landscape 
assessment, it was relatively costly to undertake and required more time and more USAID-reviewer 
editing than anticipated. While Wildlife TRAPS ultimately delivered a good product that was shared 
with other donors and partners, the quality of initial drafts was insufficient to inform some time￾sensitive decisions by USAID. Some key informants felt that the assessment’s overall value was not 
commensurate with the investment made. 
• While the assessment of illegal wildlife trade in the Garamba-Bili-Chinko transboundary landscape 
provided useful information, the scope of this assessment may have been outside of TRAFFIC’s normal 
niche, including fieldwork on the role of pastoralists in wildlife crime and its prevention.
• There were some issues with consultants brought on by the project to complete assessments. Early 
in the process of conducting some country assessments, consultants did not sufficiently coordinate, 
communicate, and consult with mission staff. This led missions to expend unexpected levels of support 
to ensure appropriate planning and coordination. The situation improved as work progressed. In 
another case, an envisioned assessment was not completed as the consultant’s quality of work was not 
acceptable. 
• Suggestions for additional assessments include Latin America trade dynamics, the impact of China’s ivory 
ban, and illegal trade in marine species and species products other than the South African Abalone.
Key Result 2. Stakeholders engaged with and influenced by Wildlife TRAPS.
Outcome Statement: 
Wildlife TRAPS convenes and participates in the global dialogue on wildlife trafficking such that there is 
evidence* that Wildlife TRAPS is increasingly influencing the activities of stakeholders in combating wildlife 
trafficking.
*Evidence of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing influence is an increasing proportion of Wildlife TRAPS-advised activities among all stakeholder-engagement 
activities in which Wildlife TRAPS is involved.
Findings:
Influence can be broadly defined as the power or capacity to change or affect someone or something. This 
power or capacity can be exerted in any number of ways such as through money, control, or thought leadership. 
In its activities with stakeholders, Wildlife TRAPS exerted its influence through funding, control over (i.e., 
level of responsibility for) agenda development and the selection of participants in a given activity, and thought 
leadership. The project aims to exert its greatest influence through thought leadership. The degree to which this 
is being achieved was assessed both quantitatively through analysis of the retrospectively compiled project data 
and qualitatively through the feedback received from key informants. 
In considering the analysis of the retrospective data, it is important to note that the number of activities 
undertaken does not convey the level of investment (direct monetary support and staff time) made in different 
activities; this information was not available for this assessment. A different picture could emerge if the analyses 
were done with activities weighted by the investments made in them.
Analysis of retrospective data. Since the inception of Wildlife TRAPS in 2013, the project has been involved 
in nearly 200 diverse activities to engage with stakeholders to reduce wildlife trafficking between Africa and 
Asia. These activities are categorized along two dimensions: (1) by the type of influence Wildlife TRAPS has 
had in its activities to engage with stakeholders, and (2) by the types of activities through which it engaged with 
stakeholders. Findings related to these two dimensions are discussed in turn below.
Box 2. Categories of Wildlife TRAPS Influence
Wildlife TRAPS-convened activity – An activity for which Wildlife TRAPS had primary control in agenda 
development and selection of participants and was the primary funder of needed direct monetary support. 
Wildlife TRAPS-co-convened activity – An activity for which Wildlife TRAPS had shared control in agenda 
development and selection of participants and was a major funder of needed direct monetary support. 
Wildlife TRAPS-advised activity – An activity for which Wildlife TRAPS provided technical leadership, 
contributed to but did not control agenda development and selection of participants, and did not contribute direct 
monetary support (i.e., no funding beyond staff time and travel expenses).
Wildlife TRAPS-participated activity – An activity in which Wildlife TRAPS was involved solely as a 
participant. Wildlife TRAPS was not in a role of providing technical leadership; made minor, if any, contributions to 
agenda development or selection of participants; and did not contribute direct monetary support (i.e., no funding 
beyond staff time and travel expenses).
The project leadership team and MI assessors defined four categories of Wildlife TRAPS influence (see Box 2) to 
capture the various levels of funding the project may provide for an activity, and the degree to which the project 
may have control over (i.e., responsibility for) the agenda and selection of participants. Figure 3 summarizes the 
number of the project’s direct-engagement11 activities in each category of influence in each fiscal year across all 
thematic areas. Of the 194 identified activities undertaken by the project through Q1 FY 2018 and across all 
thematic areas, 13% (26) were convened by Wildlife TRAPS, 19% (36) co-convened, 44% (85) advised, and 24% 
(47) participated. 
In Wildlife TRAPS-advised 
activities, project personnel 
are primarily involved to 
provide technical leadership 
while providing minimal funding 
and having only limited input 
into agenda development and 
selection of participants. As such, 
Wildlife TRAPS-advised activities 
best characterize the type of 
influence that Wildlife TRAPS 
aspires to, and the prevalence 
of this type of activity among all 
activities is used as an indicator 
for Key Result 2 of the level of 
influence the project exerts. 
Broader evidence of Wildlife 
TRAPS influence is considered 
under Assessment Question #3.
Figure 3: Number of Direct-Engagement Activities by Level of Wildlife TRAPS 
Influence in Each Fiscal Year Across All Thematic Areas. For each fiscal year, the 
percentage of activities that were Wildlife TRAPS advised is shown.
11 Direct-engagement activities are those that involve person-person interaction as opposed to engagement through dissemination of 
written (e.g., assessments, practice guides, newsletters, etc.) or recorded (e.g., webinars) materials.
24 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 25
Since project inception, 44% of 
all activities undertaken by the 
project were Wildlife TRAPS￾advised (see Figure 3). The 
data suggest an increase in the 
influence of Wildlife TRAPS 
through FY 2016 and then an 
apparent decrease in level of 
influence from FY 2016 to FY 
2017 (FY 2018 data includes 
only Q1 activities). There are 
insufficient data points to conduct 
any meaningful trend analysis.
Figure 4 presents the project’s 
level of influence in activities in 
each thematic area across all fiscal 
years. The level of influence in 
cross-cutting activities or those 
focused on wildlife trafficking 
generally rather than on a specific 
thematic area is also shown. 
Higher levels of influence (>50% 
Wildlife TRAPS-advised activities) 
are seen in the Financial Sector (79%), Law Enforcement (65%), and Demand Reduction (56%); a moderate 
level (>25-50%) is seen in the Transportation Sector; and lower levels of influence (0-25%) are seen in Wildlife 
Forensics (19%), the cross-cutting category (19%), and Community Engagement (0%).
Figure 4: Number of Direct-Engagement Activities by Level of Wildlife TRAPS Influence 
in Each Thematic Area Across All Fiscal Years. For each thematic area category, the 
percentage of activities that were Wildlife TRAPS advised is shown. Activities that 
focused on wildlife trafficking generally rather than on specific thematic areas are 
included in the cross-cutting category.
In consultation with the Project Lead, MI assessors defined seven types of direct-engagement activities to 
characterize the nature of the activities through which Wildlife TRAPS engaged with stakeholders (see Box 3). 
Figure 5 on page 25 summarizes the numbers of each type of direct-engagement activity that Wildlife TRAPS 
was involved with in each fiscal 
year across all thematic areas. In FY 
2013, stakeholder consultations and 
networking dominated the activities 
undertaken as the project focused 
on raising its profile and establishing 
relationships. In succeeding years, the 
diversity of activities increased as did 
the total number of activities in which 
the project was involved. Across 
all fiscal years, collectively 84% of 
Wildlife TRAPS’ direct-engagement 
activities comprised contributions 
to meetings (40%), stakeholder 
consultations and networking (23%), 
and training workshops (21%). 
BOX 3. Types of Wildlife TRAPS Direct-Engagement Activities.
Collaborative Action Planning (CAP) workshops – Workshops convened by Wildlife TRAPS to define 
priority actions to combat wildlife trafficking in a given thematic area.
Meeting contributions – Meetings in which Wildlife TRAPS personnel have an explicit role in advancing the 
agenda of the meeting (e.g., presenter, panelist, discussant), as opposed to attending as an observer or audience 
member. 
Stakeholder consultation and networking – Formal and informal discussions with stakeholders to explore 
opportunities for their new or further involvement in the work of the project or in the broad network of stakeholders 
working to reduce wildlife trafficking. 
Advisory group service – Recurring service by Wildlife TRAPS personnel on multi-stakeholder advisory or 
working groups convened to guide or advance actions to combat wildlife trafficking in a given thematic area.
Direct technical assistance – Activities through which Wildlife TRAPS personnel share their technical expertise 
with a stakeholder to advance stakeholder efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. 
Professional development support – Opportunities provided through Wildlife TRAPS support to individuals in 
stakeholder organizations to advance their career development; includes mentoring, peer assists, participation in expert 
roundtables, conference attendance, involvement in the piloting of innovative technologies, and learning exchanges.
Figure 5: Number of Wildlife TRAPS Direct-Engagement Activities by Type in Each 
Fiscal Year Across All Thematic Areas. The number in parenthesis is the total number 
of activities for each time period.
Figure 6 summarizes the same data 
for number of direct-engagement 
activities of each type but presents 
the numbers of activities the project 
was involved in by thematic area 
across all fiscal years. More than 
half of the activities focused on 
Law Enforcement (29%) or wildlife 
trafficking generally (i.e., cross-cutting 
category; 29%). The Transportation 
Sector was engaged in 15% of project 
activities, while Demand Reduction, 
Wildlife Forensics, and Financial 
Sector activities accounted for less 
than 20% of total project activities. 
Figure 6: Number of Wildlife TRAPS Direct-Engagement Activities by Type in Each 
Thematic Area Across All Fiscal Years. The number in parenthesis is the total number 
of activities for each thematic area category. Activities that focused on wildlife 
trafficking generally rather than on specific thematic areas are included in the cross￾cutting category.
It could be useful to know which 
types of activities have been more 
effective in building and strengthening 
the network of stakeholders working 
to reduce wildlife crime. Complete 
lists of stakeholder organizations and 
number (and gender) of participants 
were not compiled for most 
activities, so it is not possible in this 
assessment to identify the number or 
diversity of stakeholders that Wildlife 
TRAPS engaged through different 
types of activities or in each thematic 
area. Available information on the 
nature and scope of stakeholders 
engaged through the project is 
discussed under Key Result 5.
26 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 27
Key informant feedback:
• There is little recognition of Wildlife TRAPS as a project. Its influence is expressed through the thought 
leadership and relationships of the organizations and personnel implementing it.
• TRAFFIC is very well regarded as an unbiased source of information on illegal wildlife trade, respected 
for its evidence-based approach to the development of strategies to combat wildlife trafficking, and 
considered a thought leader in the global dialogue to reduce illegal trade.
• Wildlife TRAPS’ Project Lead, Nick Ahlers, is acknowledged as a driving force in raising awareness of the 
multi-sectoral nature of wildlife trafficking, its relevance to new stakeholders and sectors, and in building 
the cross-sector bridges needed to enable multi-sectoral action. He is a trusted collaborator with deep 
understanding of the issues.
• USAID is lauded for its leadership in using its convening power to enable a multi-sectoral dialogue on 
combating wildlife trafficking, and its willingness to take the risks necessary to catalyze action at the scale 
and of the scope needed to effectively stop illegal wildlife trade. 
Key Result 3. Needed CWT actions are prioritized by stakeholders.
Outcome Statements: 
1. By the end of the project, Wildlife TRAPS has convened a CAP workshop in at least four thematic areas 
that result in published recommendations of priority actions to combat wildlife trafficking.
2. Throughout the project, new work areas for priority CWT action are initiated with stakeholders 
outside of a CAP process in response to emerging issues and opportunities.
Findings:
Analysis of retrospective data. Wildlife TRAPS co-convened CAP workshops with other partners in four 
thematic areas (Transportation Sector, Law Enforcement, Demand Reduction, and Wildlife Forensics; see 
Table 3 on page 27) and published workshop proceedings. Workshop participants collaboratively identified 
recommended priority actions (see Annex D). The scope of these recommendations varied across the thematic 
areas, with those from the transportation sector and demand reduction CAP workshops more broadly focused. 
The transportation workshop focused on actions to reduce wildlife smuggling along entire transportation and 
supply chains; the demand reduction workshop focused on actions to reduce consumer demand for illegal 
wildlife products. The law enforcement and wildlife forensics workshops were more tightly focused, specifically 
on support of implementation of National Ivory Action Plans (NIAPs) and internationalization of the Rhino DNA 
Index System® (RhODIS®), respectively. 
Early in the project, USAID and TRAFFIC decided that Wildlife TRAPS would support only four CAP 
workshops. As the project evolved and relationships with an expanding set of stakeholders grew, opportunities 
emerged to engage stakeholders in reducing wildlife trafficking through actions beyond those identified in the 
CAP workshops. New areas for collaborative action (referred to as new work areas) emerged in four thematic 
areas. Table 4 on page 27 identifies these new work areas and the rationale for pursuing them as priorities for 
stakeholder action in combating wildlife trafficking.
Feedback from post-workshop participant surveys: 
• CAP workshops were very useful in raising participants’ awareness of wildlife trafficking issues; building 
trust and relationships; and sharing knowledge, expertise, and ideas among diverse stakeholders. 
• CAP workshops resulted in a general commitment among stakeholders to work together and 
generated ideas for ways in which different stakeholders can take action and collaborate. Several 
respondents expressed desire for more focused sets of recommended explicit activities rather than 
recommendations for general types of action.
Table 3: Collaborative Action Planning (CAP) Workshops Co-Convened by Wildlife TRAPS.
CAP Workshop 
Thematic Area 
[location, date]
Proceedings Title (date)
# Resulting 
Recommended 
Priority Actions
# Participating 
Organizations
# 
Participants
Transportation Sector 
[Bangkok, January 2015]
Countering Illegal Wildlife Trade: 
Collaborative Actions Along 
Transportation and Supply Chains 
Consultative Workshop (2015)
45 27 54
Law Enforcement 
[Kinshasa, November 
2015]
Workshop Proceedings: Sub-Regional 
Acton Planning to Strengthen 
Regional Collaboration. Support of the 
Implementation of National Ivory Action 
Plans (NIAPs) in Central Africa (2016)
6 25 43
Demand Reduction
[Hong Kong, March 
2016]
Changing Behaviour to Reduce Demand 
for Illegal Wildlife Products. Workshop 
Proceedings (2016)
23 58 92
Wildlife Forensics
[Pretoria, June 2016]
RhODIS® (Rhino DNA Index system). 
Collaborative Action Planning Workshop 
Proceedings (2017)
7 32 50
Table 4. New Work Areas for Wildlife TRAPS Engagement with Stakeholders. The rationale for each new 
work area was provided by the Wildlife TRAPS Project Lead.
Thematic Area New Work Area(s) Rationale 
Financial Sector 
Engage financial 
institutions and 
financial intelligence 
units
Early in the project, engaging the financial sector was identified as a potential 
area of work. This work area was initiated through opportunities presented 
to the project by key partners (e.g., United Nations Office on Drugs and 
Crime [UNODC]) and it has developed into a fully-fledged body of work. 
Wildlife Forensics
Expand wildlife 
forensic capacity 
beyond rhinos
The wildlife forensics CAP workshop focused on rhinos and RHODIS® because 
it provided a good entry point for TRAFFIC and technical partners to explore 
the opportunities and operational challenges associated with using forensics for 
enforcement applications between Africa and Asia. In the CAP workshop, a whole 
range of non-rhino related work was identified that would advance this field and 
improve the application of forensics to illegal wildlife trade.
Law Enforcement
Build judiciary and 
investigative capacity
The law enforcement CAP workshop was focused on the NIAP process 
because it provided a focused topic on which to engage partners in Central 
Africa. The law enforcement workstream within Wildlife TRAPS has always 
focused on activities beyond the NIAPs. This has included targeted work 
with law enforcement and the judiciary via strategic partners, including 
UNODC and the World Customs Organization (WCO). 
Support conservation 
of the South African 
Abalone
Wildlife TRAPS has been one of the few initiatives globally that has focused on 
South African Abalone as a species that is not only heavily traded illegally, but 
also representative of wider issues related to natural resource governance, 
corruption, permitting, connections with other organized crime, and consumer 
demand. Therefore, it has presented several opportunities within the law 
enforcement workstream to inform actions via trade data analysis and training, 
and scope out innovative traceability systems in the future. 
Community 
Engagement
Support learning 
and exchange 
around community 
engagement in 
combating wildlife 
crime
As the project was starting, there was an increasing global focus on anti￾poaching, but it was felt that the perspectives and roles of communities in 
combating wildlife trafficking were largely under-represented. Evidence on 
effective community-led interventions and sustainable-use models is not 
robust enough to drive high-level policy engagement and evidence-based 
project development. Therefore, the project invested resources together 
with partners to build an evidence base and associated theory of change 
framework to improve interventions in partnership communities.
28 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 29
A community ranger observes a family of elephants near Kauro, Sera. Photo Credit: Northern Rangelands Trust.
Key informant feedback:
• Using a collaborative process such as a CAP workshop to define shared priorities is important. One 
key informant felt that the convening of forums and opportunities to build a common understanding is a 
“must” and “organizations that have the power to convene should do so.” 
• CAP workshops were instrumental in creating and strengthening stakeholder relationships. They also 
fostered a shared understanding of wildlife trafficking issues and the role different sectors can play in 
reducing wildlife trafficking, and development of a common language for multi-stakeholder and cross￾sector discussions. Some felt that these outcomes were more important than the priority actions 
defined. 
• The transportation CAP workshop was hailed by key informants as “a game changer” and “a pivotal” 
meeting. It was viewed as catalyzing the engagement of the airline sector in the fight against wildlife 
trafficking. 
• The demand reduction CAP workshop was considered “groundbreaking” by multiple key informants 
and characterized as the “largest of its kind” in bringing together diverse stakeholders. It was considered 
instrumental in bringing social and behavioral science into the broad dialogue around demand reduction 
and increasing the appetite for its application.
Key Result 4. Priority CWT actions are implemented.
Outcome Statements: 
1. Throughout Wildlife TRAPS, priority CWT actions* are being implemented (A) through Wildlife TRAPS 
annual work plans, (B) as a result of action prioritization and funded** through Wildlife TRAPS but 
not included in Wildlife TRAPS work plans, and (C) as a result of action prioritization, but not funded 
through Wildlife TRAPS.
2. By the end of the project, there is evidence*** of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing catalytic effect on 
implementation of priority CWT actions* by others.
*Priority CWT actions are those that stakeholders in a given thematic area collaboratively identified as priorities. 
**Wildlife TRAPS funding includes Wildlife TRAPS staff time and travel as well as direct monetary support.
***Evidence of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing catalytic effect is an increasing proportion of all implemented priority CWT actions that are 
implemented as a result of Wildlife TRAPS action prioritization (Pathways B and C above) rather than through the work plan (Pathway A above).
Findings:
The Wildlife TRAPS theory of change assumes that project efforts to engage stakeholders and collaboratively 
define priority actions to reduce wildlife trafficking will result in priority actions being implemented in part 
through stakeholder activities catalyzed by the stakeholder’s engagement with Wildlife TRAPS but not part of 
Wildlife TRAPS’ work plans. Priority actions can be identified through a CAP-workshop process or through 
a less formal, consultative process with stakeholders such as was used to define the new work areas for 
priority CWT action discussed under Result 3. This analysis of progress towards Result 4 considers only the 
implementation of actions defined through a CAP-workshop process. Thus, success in implementing the priority 
CWT actions identified through the CAP-workshop processes is characterized not only by the extent to which 
the actions are being implemented, but also the extent to which Wildlife TRAPS has catalyzed stakeholders to 
undertake those actions. The assessment team looked at both of these aspects of success through analysis of the 
retrospectively compiled project data and feedback received from key informants.
Analysis of retrospective data. In development of the project’s revised monitoring framework, the project 
leadership team identified three pathways through which prioritized CWT actions are implemented: (1) through 
activities included in Wildlife TRAPS work plans (Pathway A); (2) through activities outside the work plans but 
receiving some Wildlife TRAPS funding in the form of staff time, travel expenses, or direct monetary support 
(Pathway B);12 and (3) through activities undertaken by stakeholders independently of Wildlife TRAPS (Pathway 
C). Implementation of activities through either Pathway B or C could be evidence of a catalytic effect of the 
project; that is, evidence that the outputs and/or activities of Wildlife TRAPS motivated or inspired stakeholders 
to implement the defined priority CWT actions. Independent stakeholder implementation of priority CWT 
actions (Pathway C) is clear evidence of the desired catalytic effect. The project leadership team noted, however, 
that not all project-funded activities implemented outside the work plan (through Pathway B) should be 
characterized as a catalytic effect of the project as they may have been activities initiated by Wildlife TRAPS in 
response to an opportunity that emerged after a work plan was developed. MI assessors explored whether or 
not activities to implement priority CWT actions through Pathway B should appropriately be characterized as 
evidence of the project’s catalytic effect.
Table 5 on page 30 summarizes progress made to date in implementing the four sets of priority CWT actions 
(see Annex D) defined in the CAP workshops for Demand Reduction, Law Enforcement (NIAPs), the Transport 
Sector, and Wildlife Forensics (RhODIS®). In all cases, more than 50% of the defined actions have been 
implemented through at least one activity undertaken by Wildlife TRAPS or other stakeholders. Furthermore, 
in each thematic area, more than 10 stakeholder organizations (including multiple key stakeholders) have 
implemented at least one activity for any priority action.
12 Activities implemented through Wildlife TRAPS that are not in the current work plan are communicated to USAID and approved as 
may be required.
30 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 31
Table 5: Implementation of Priority Combating Wildlife Trafficking (CWT) Actions Defined Through 
the CAP-Workshop Process. TRAFFIC is included in the number of stakeholder organizations implementing priority 
CWT actions and is counted only once regardless of how many TRAFFIC projects (e.g., Wildlife TRAPS, ROUTES) or other 
internal entities are involved.
Thematic 
Area
# Priority 
CWT 
Actions 
Defined
# Priority 
CWT Actions 
Implemented 
(% total)
# Stakeholder 
Organizations 
Implementing 
Priority Actions
Key Stakeholder Organizations 
Implementing Priority Actions
Demand 
Reduction 23 13 (57%) 17 Key stakeholder organizations not identified
Law 
Enforcement - 
NIAPs
6 4 (67%) 22
• CITES Secretariat
• Ministry of Forests and Wildlife, 
Cameroon
• WWF
Transportation 
Sector 45 28 (62%) 27
• DHL
• DHL eCommerce (Vietnam)
• DHL Singapore
• Etihad Airways
• International Federation of Freight 
Forwarders Association
• Tanzania Freight Forwarders 
Association
• World Customs Organization
• WWF
Wildlife 
Forensics –
Rhino DNA 
Index System®
(RhODIS®)
7 5 (71%) 14
• CITES Secretariat
• Netherlands Forensics Institute
• RhODIS®
• Society for Wildlife Forensic Science 
– Technical Working Group
• Tools and Resources for Applied 
Conservation and Enforcement
Any one priority action can be implemented through multiple activities undertaken by multiple stakeholders. 
Conversely, any one activity can be undertaken to implement multiple priority actions. The total numbers of 
unique activities undertaken to implement any priority action defined in the four CAP workshops are presented 
in Table 6 (see page 31) and are categorized according to the pathway of activity implementation, year of 
implementation, type of Wildlife TRAPS influence, and type of Wildlife TRAPS funding received. Transportation 
Sector priority actions were advanced by the most activities, Wildlife Forensics priority actions by the least. 
Priority actions for the Transportation Sector and Wildlife Forensics have been implemented through all 
pathways; no priority actions for Demand Reduction or Law Enforcement have been implemented through 
Pathway C. In all thematic areas, implementation of actions was dominated by activities included in Wildlife 
TRAPS work plans (Pathway A). Across all thematic areas, 74 actions were implemented through Pathway A, 17 
through Pathway B, and only five through Pathway C. 
While it was anticipated that activities implemented through either Pathway B or C would be evidence of a 
catalytic effect of Wildlife TRAPS, examination of available information suggests that most, if not all, activities 
to implement priority actions through Pathway B should not be characterized as such. Most of the 17 actions 
implemented through Pathway B were presentations made by TRAFFIC or were opportunistic networking 
and awareness-building opportunities. Also implemented through Pathway B were two training activities: one 
in which a project staff member was a participant and a second in which Wildlife TRAPS delivered a training 
at the USAID Environment Officers’ Conference on Social and Behavioral Change Communications (SBCC). 
Consequently, in this assessment, only activities implemented by stakeholders independently of Wildlife TRAPS 
(Pathway C) are considered as catalyzed by the project. 
Table 6: Characteristics of Activities Undertaken to Implement Priority CWT Actions Defined Through
the CAP-Workshop Process. For each set of priority CWT actions defined through a CAP workshop, the total number
of unique activities undertaken by stakeholder organizations to implement any of the priority actions is provided and
categorized according to the pathway of activity implementation, year of implementation, type of Wildlife TRAPS
influence, and type of Wildlife TRAPS funding received. Three pathways of activity implementation are defined: (A)
through the Wildlife TRAPS work plan, (B) outside of the Wildlife TRAPS work plan but with some type of Wildlife TRAPS
funding, and (C) independently of Wildlife TRAPS. See Box 2 on page 23 for description of categories of Wildlife TRAPS
influence. “W-TRAPS” denotes Wildlife TRAPS. 
Thematic Area of 
CAP Workshop￾defined Priority 
CWT Actions
# Activities 
Undertaken 
to Implement 
Priority 
Actions
# Per 
Implementation 
Pathway
# Per FY # Per Type of Wildlife 
TRAPS Influence
# Per Type 
of Wildlife 
TRAPS 
Funding
Demand Reduction 24
Pathway A: 15
Pathway B: 9
Pathway C: 0
FY 2013: 0
FY 2014: 0
FY 2015: 1
FY 2016: 2
FY 2017: 17
FY 2018: 4
W-TRAPS convened: 3
W-TRAPS co-convened: 8
W-TRAPS advised: 11
W-TRAPS participated: 2
No W-TRAPS engagement: 0
Staff time: 24
Staff travel: 12
Direct monetary
support: 5
Law Enforcement - 
NIAPs 27
Pathway A: 24 
Pathway B: 3
Pathway C: 0
FY 2013: 0
FY 2014: 0
FY 2015: 7
FY 2016: 10
FY 2017: 9
FY 2018: 1
W-TRAPS convened: 0
W-TRAPS co-convened: 3
W-TRAPS advised: 24
W-TRAPS participated: 0
No W-TRAPS engagement: 0
Staff time: 27
Staff travel: 24
Direct monetary
support: 2
Transportation 
Sector 39
Pathway A: 29
Pathway B: 6
Pathway C: 4
FY 2013: 0
FY 2014: 0
FY 2015: 14
FY 2016: 11
FY 2017: 10
FY 2018: 4
W-TRAPS convened: 2
W-TRAPS co-convened: 7
W-TRAPS advised: 19
W-TRAPS participated: 7
No W-TRAPS engagement: 4
Staff time: 34
Staff travel: 23
Direct monetary
support: 8
Wildlife Forensics - 
RhODIS® 8
Pathway A: 6
Pathway B: 1
Pathway C: 1
FY 2013: 0
FY 2014: 1
FY 2015: 0
FY 2016: 3
FY 2017: 3
FY 2018: 1
W-TRAPS convened: 0
W-TRAPS co-convened: 3
W-TRAPS advised: 2
W-TRAPS participated: 2
No W-TRAPS engagement: 1
Staff time: 4
Staff travel: 4
Direct monetary
support: 3
There were four activities implemented through Pathway C in the Transport Sector and one in Wildlife 
Forensics. Catalyzed Transportation Sector activities include articles by Etihad Airways (2; FY 2017, FY 2018) 
and DHL (1; FY 2017) to raise awareness of wildlife trafficking issues among their constituents, and an FY 2015 
website update by the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Association (FIATA) to include TRAFFIC 
as a partner and provide information on illegal wildlife trade issues. In Wildlife Forensics, independent of Wildlife 
TRAPS, Dr. Ross McEwing, director of Tools and Resources for Applied Conservation and Enforcement 
(TRACE), participated in meetings with and contributed to a 4-day training for forensics colleagues in Hong 
Kong in FY16. 
Note that the analysis for Result 4 includes information only on activities gleaned from project reports and 
discussions with project staff, and only on activities undertaken to implement priority actions defined through 
the four CAP workshops. Other activities undertaken by stakeholders to implement these defined priority 
actions were explored with key informants and are noted below. Stakeholder activities influenced and catalyzed 
by Wildlife TRAPS to implement actions to combat wildlife trafficking in work areas outside the scope of the 
CAP workshops are discussed under Assessment Question #3.
32 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 33
Key informant feedback: 
• Independent of Wildlife TRAPS, Etihad Airways has implemented two activities that advance the defined 
priority actions beyond those captured through the analysis of retrospectively compiled data. They (1) 
developed an Animal Welfare and Conservation Policy that was publicly released in October 2016, and 
(2) partnered with the International Fund for Animal Welfare to provide training to ground handlers.
• A common theme in the feedback is the great value in bringing people together to discuss and focus 
shared priorities. However, several informants noted the challenge of keeping the momentum going and 
in translating the call for action into action. People get inspired at workshops “but then they go home 
and get swamped.” 
• Many informants also noted that there are overlapping priorities across agencies and various efforts to 
mobilize collaborative action to reduce wildlife crime resulting in stakeholders having competing priorities 
for their action. One informant shared that the CAP-defined priority actions are “not really driving my 
priorities, I have been focused on our responsibility as a signatory to [a set of priority actions defined 
outside of Wildlife TRAPS processes]. I see Wildlife TRAPS as a resource to implement those priorities.” 
Key Result 5. Key stakeholders in each Wildlife TRAPS thematic area are engaged 
in CWT activities with Wildlife TRAPS and influencing others in their respective 
networks.
Outcome Statement: 
By the end of the project, key stakeholders* in each thematic area are engaged in CWT activities with Wildlife 
TRAPS, and there is evidence** that they are increasing the number and connectivity of others in their 
respective networks that are engaging in CWT.
*Key stakeholders are individuals and entities with high influence in their respective sector (e.g., industry associations, regulatory bodies, champions in 
thematic area, strategic partners).
**Evidence will be metrics of # network linkages and connectivity as provided by chosen network-analysis software – explicit metrics will be defined 
after software is chosen and piloted.
Findings:
Analysis of retrospective data. The Wildlife TRAPS theory of change assumes that project engagement 
with stakeholders will influence stakeholder work and that engagement of key stakeholders will lead them 
to influence others in their respective networks. Since FY 2014, the development and continuous updating 
of a stakeholder map has been in the Wildlife TRAPS work plans. The FY 2014 – FY2017 work plans state 
that the mapping exercise entails “understanding existing partner relationships, the frequency and depth of 
engagement between agencies, and identify weaknesses or opportunities to foster and strengthen working 
relationships between both traditional and non-traditional partners.” Furthermore, in these work plans, it was 
envisioned that an initial map would be completed early in the project to serve as a baseline to “demonstrate 
a change or evolution of existing or new relationships that have been developed or strengthened as a result 
of project activities.” The project developed lists of the stakeholders that it is already engaging and identified 
key stakeholders among them for some thematic areas. The numbers of stakeholder organizations and key 
stakeholder organizations in each of these thematic areas are provided in Table 7 on page 33. Project staff are in 
the process of developing maps for each of these thematic areas that consider the level of influence, interest, or 
importance of different stakeholders; number of connections between the project and stakeholders and among 
stakeholders; and the strength of relationships and knowledge flows. In the absence of the stakeholder maps, 
there is insufficient data in project reports on stakeholder network composition or strength to assess progress 
towards this outcome beyond the lists of key stakeholders engaged.
Key informant feedback on project efforts to engage stakeholders and build relationships among stakeholders is 
provided below.
Table 7: Stakeholder Organizations Engaged by Wildlife TRAPS. Not included are data from a list of individuals 
involved in the Social and Behavioral Change Communications (SBCC) Community of Practice that the project maintains 
for the demand reduction thematic area. For the law enforcement thematic are, a list of stakeholder organizations has 
been developed for only those involved in National Ivory Action Plan (NIAP) work.
Thematic Area # Stakeholder Organizations # Key Stakeholder Organizations
Law Enforcement – NIAPs 28 8
Transportation Sector 49 10
Wildlife Forensics 38 8
Financial Sector 21 5
Key informant feedback:
• Many key informants reported that project staff have done a good job in building networks in both 
governments and civil society. It was noted that there is often skepticism among law enforcement 
personnel about the role of NGOs in reducing wildlife trafficking, but TRAFFIC has demonstrated 
its value. In one case, a TRAFFIC staff member was invited by a stakeholder to an important meeting 
with the Chinese government, where NGOs were not invited, because “they know how to work with 
government.”
• Examples shared of how project staff and activities helped make new or build stronger relationships 
among stakeholders include:
o The process of developing the Kenya assessment enabled a “breakthrough” in mission relations 
with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). Although not due to the workshop alone, the sense of 
ownership it gave to participants contributed to “opening doors and increasing transparency” 
with KWS.
o Wildlife TRAPS’ sponsorship of forensics specialists from Africa and Asia to attend a conference 
of the Society for Wildlife Forensic Science “led to lasting relationships” and enabled 
“international networking and collaboration in wildlife forensics.”
• The project has fostered important partnerships between TRAFFIC and ICCWC with strategic areas 
of work outlined through memoranda of understanding with the United Nations Office on Drugs and 
Crime (UNODC) and the World Customs Organization (WCO) as well as targeted activities with the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the 
International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).
• Although acknowledging the valuable work done through Wildlife TRAPS to build relationships and 
stakeholder networks, one key informant shared, “I’m struggling to understand if [Wildlife TRAPS] is 
working with the right people or just inviting new actors rather than making critical connections.”
• Multiple informants questioned whether the project is fully leveraging the IUCN network.
• Some suggestions were shared of how networks could be strengthened:
o For Community Engagement, “boost the ability of communities to have a voice in the arenas 
where decisions are made.” It was suggested that Wildlife TRAPS “could help by bringing the 
right voices to the table” to increase the visibility and participation of communities.
o For Wildlife Forensics, create a working group that meets regularly to guide and facilitate network 
communication and collaboration. Bring in new forensic laboratories as they are established. 
Establish in-country networks to involve scientists in investigations and support prosecutions.
o For the Transportation Sector, engage cargo ground handlers at airports more broadly in 
awareness-building efforts and trainings.
34 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 35
Key Result 6. Stakeholders enabled to implement needed CWT actions.
Outcome Statements: 
By the end of the project, in each thematic area (as appropriate):
1. Thematic area-specific trainings have been offered and key stakeholders have participated;
2. Thematic area-specific materials* for improved practice are available, and being used by key 
stakeholders; 
3. Thematic area-specific professional development opportunities** are available, and being used by key 
stakeholders; and
4. There is a mechanism*** in place for stakeholders in the thematic area network to communicate and 
collaborate.
*Materials include guides, toolkits, typologies, modules, webinars, standard operational procedures, etc.
**Professional development opportunities include mentoring, peer assists, expert roundtables, conference attendance, piloting new 
technologies, learning exchanges, etc.
***Mechanisms include virtual communities of practice, task forces, information-exchange platforms, etc.
Findings:
Analysis of retrospective data. Wildlife TRAPS provided a range of trainings, materials,13 professional 
development opportunities, and mechanisms to support collaboration and communication among stakeholders. 
Summarized by thematic area, these include:
• Demand Reduction – Two trainings were provided in Social and Behavioral Change Communications 
(SBCC). Materials provided include content for the Wildlife Consumer Behavior Change Toolkit, 
Changing Demands webinar series, SBCC Community of Practice monthly newsletters, briefing notes, 
and the Monitoring and Evaluation Good Practices Guidelines. The SBCC Community of Practice 
provides a mechanism for network communication and information sharing. 
• Law Enforcement – Twenty-five trainings were provided to diverse audiences on topics including wildlife 
law enforcement procedures, wildlife law, operational planning, intelligence-gathering; wildlife trade 
trends and hotspots; species and wildlife product identification; and new technologies. Also provided 
were a law enforcement guide and a training module and an opportunity for Asian customs officials to 
participate in training in Africa. The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and the Africa-Trade in 
Wildlife Information eXchange (Africa-TWIX) provide platforms for data sharing.
• Transportation Sector – Ten trainings were provided for the UNODC/WCO Container Control 
Program and to air transport industry (airlines, freight forwarders, etc.) personnel. Materials provided 
include Etihad Airways training modules and the revised banned goods list for DHL. UNODC/WCO 
provides a platform for data sharing (Container Comm).
• Wildlife Forensics – One training in DNA testing was provided. Materials provided include forensics 
samples and wildlife forensics training content. Four professional development opportunities were 
provided including sponsorship of African and Asian forensic scientist attendance at two Society for 
Wildlife Forensic Science meetings. 
• Financial Sector – Three trainings were provided on typologies and the detection of money laundering. 
Materials provided include money laundering case studies and typologies. The Financial Institution Task 
Force on Illegal Wildlife Trade may evolve as a mechanism for network communication and fostering 
collaboration. 
• Community Engagement – There have been no trainings, materials, professional development opportunities, 
or mechanisms for network communication or collaboration yet provided in this thematic area. However, 
other stakeholders (e.g., the International Institute of Environment and Development [IIED]) have produced 
resources that build upon the Beyond Enforcement theory of change for community engagement in 
combating wildlife trafficking that was developed with support from Wildlife TRAPS. 
13 Note that the assessments produced through Wildlife TRAPS are not included among the materials summarized under Result 6.
Table 8 (see page 36) summarizes the participation in or use of trainings, materials, professional development 
opportunities, and collaboration and communication mechanisms provided through Wildlife TRAPS by key 
stakeholder organizations. In all thematic areas except Community Engagement, the project provided at least three 
of the four types of resources, including at least one training and one material. For the four thematic areas in which 
resources were provided and for which key stakeholder organizations were identified (i.e., Law Enforcement, 
Transportation Sector, Wildlife Forensics, Financial Sector), several key stakeholder organizations used or 
participated in at least one offering of any type of resource, and at least one key stakeholder organization used or 
participated in each type of resource offered. 
Key informant feedback:
Note: this feedback applies to resources provided through the project except the assessments, although some comments 
are applicable to assessments and are also noted in Key Result 1.
• There was not a lot of feedback on the use or value of specific resources beyond the assessments (and except 
as noted below) other than that key informants found materials useful and trainings were well received.
• The professional development opportunities provided through Wildlife TRAPS were deemed extremely 
valuable by multiple key informants, particularly its sponsorship of forensic scientists to attend 
professional conferences and the support provided so Asian forensic scientists and customs officials 
could attend workshops and trainings in Africa.
• One informant offered several thoughts on the Wildlife Consumer Behaviour Change Toolkit, calling 
it a “great start” and a “useful repository of resources,” many of which are frequently shared with 
colleagues. It was noted that it is often more convenient to listen to webinar recordings than to 
participate live; however, links for some webinars were expired or did not work. Regarding the 
SBCC Community of Practice newsletter, “I really enjoy getting these periodic newsletters and almost 
invariably forward them to colleagues.”
• As noted for assessments as well, multiple informants relayed a need for broader sharing of materials 
produced through the project. They are “very difficult” to locate online. A search for Wildlife TRAPS 
on the USAID Biodiversity Conservation Gateway takes one to a page with a brief outdated project 
description and a dead link to press releases. A search on TRAFFIC.org yields outdated job-vacancy 
announcements, one project-supported assessment, and a multitude of unrelated items.
• Many informants identified needs for further resources that are summarized by thematic area below. It 
is worthwhile to note that in all thematic areas, development of the identified needed resources would 
be broadly aligned with or would build upon priority actions defined through the CAP workshops or 
new work areas identified for priority action.
o Wildlife Forensics – Need new and refined techniques and tests; samples and reference data; 
resources to assist technology transfer between labs in different countries, both equipment 
and training; trainings harmonized to an international standard; and training and resources to 
enhance the quality and credibility of forensic evidence for prosecutions.
o Demand Reduction – “Need tailored materials, not more materials” for governments to launch 
their own campaigns. Materials need to be “streamlined, less pedantic and academic,” and 
consider the unique roles that government agencies play (“they are enforcement authorities that 
make decisions, they don’t just put up posters”).
o Law Enforcement – Provide updated information on the status and trends in illegal trade and 
synthesize so enforcement personnel “can get the big picture.” 
o Transportation Sector – Make resources easily accessible through the International Air 
Transport Association (IATA). Need templates so companies can adapt materials for their own 
use, updated statistics and help messaging them, and “decent” animal pictures.
o Financial Sector – Provide banks with robust, reliable information that has been scrutinized by 
an organization that understands illegal wildlife trade. Also need typological information.
o Community Engagement – Need capacity building for communities to network and organize to 
increase their voice and power, and sponsor attendance of community representatives at meetings.
36 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 37
Table 8. Key Stakeholder Organizations Participating in or Using Trainings, Materials, Professional Development Opportunities, and Collaboration and Communication Mechanisms Provided through Wildlife TRAPS. 
Key stakeholder organizations were not identified for the demand reduction and community engagement thematic areas. 
Thematic Area Trainings
Materials 
[includes guides, toolkits, typologies, modules, webinars, 
standard operational procedures]
Professional Development Opportunities 
[includes mentoring, peer assists, expert roundtables, 
conference attendance, piloting new technologies, 
learning exchanges]
Collaboration & Communication 
Mechanisms 
[includes virtual communities of practice, task
forces, information exchange platforms]
# Key Stakeholder 
Organizations Using 
Any Type of Support 
Tool
(total # Key Stakeholder 
Organizations)
# 
Available
# Key 
Stakeholders 
Participating
Participating Key 
Stakeholders
# 
Available
# Key 
Stakeholders 
Using
Participating Key 
Stakeholders
# 
Available
# Key 
Stakeholders 
Participating
Participating Key 
Stakeholders
# 
Available
# Key 
Stakeholders 
Using
Participating 
Key 
Stakeholders
Demand Reduction 2 NA NA 7 NA NA 0 NA NA 1 NA NA NA
Law Enforcement - NIAPs 25 5
MINFOF
WWF
UNODC
MDDEFE*
WCO
2 2 MINFOF
WWF 2 2 MINFOF
WCO 2 2 MINFOF
MECNT** 6 (8)
Transportation Sector 10 7
UNODC
WCO
DHL 
Singapore
TAFFA
DHL 
e-commerce
Etihad Airways
CITES
2 2 DHL
Etihad Airways 0 NA NA 1 2 UNODC
WCO 8 (10)
Wildlife Forensics 1 1 TRACE 2 3
RhODIS®
TRACE
Department of Wildlife & 
National Parks, Malaysia
4 3
RhODIS®
TRACE
Department of Wild￾life & National Parks, 
Malaysia
0 NA NA 3 (8)
Financial Sector 3 2 UNODC
WCO 1 2 ARINSA*** 
UNODC 0 NA NA 1 2 RUSI
UNODC 4 (5)
Community Engagement 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA
*MDDEFE: Ministry of Sustainable Development, the Forest Economy and the Environment, Republic of Congo
**MECNT: Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism, Democratic Republic of Congo
***ARINSA: Asset Recovery Interagency Network for Southern Africa
38 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 39
Key Result 7. Stakeholder networks in each Wildlife TRAPS thematic area are 
sustainable and continue to take action to reduce wildlife trafficking.
Key Result 7 is outside the manageable interest of Wildlife TRAPS. While not an outcome for which Wildlife 
TRAPS is accountable to deliver, the Wildlife TRAPS theory of change assumes that the project contributes to 
its achievement and thus evidence of progress towards its achievement is included in this assessment. 
Outcome Statement: 
By the end of the project, member(s) of stakeholder networks in each thematic area are planning or 
implementing CWT actions that continue or expand upon Wildlife TRAPS work plan activities and are doing so 
without funding* from Wildlife TRAPS.
*Wildlife TRAPS funding includes Wildlife TRAPS staff time and travel as well as direct monetary support.
Findings:
For each thematic area, the Wildlife TRAPS theory of change assumes that if stakeholders are implementing 
priority actions to reduce wildlife trafficking, and key stakeholders are actively influencing others in their respective 
network to undertake activities to reduce wildlife trafficking, and resources are available to enable stakeholders to 
continue to implement actions to reduce wildlife trafficking; then the network of stakeholders will be sustainable 
and continue to take action in combating wildlife trafficking beyond the life of Wildlife TRAPS. At this midterm 
juncture of Wildlife TRAPS, it is premature to assess if stakeholders in each thematic area network are planning 
or implementing CWT actions that continue or expand upon project activities beyond the life of the project. 
However, the assessment team was able to assess their “readiness” to do so at a very high level. 
MI assessors explored the readiness of the network in each thematic area to be sustained beyond the life of 
the project and to continue work to reduce wildlife trafficking by reviewing the status of the three elements 
outlined in the project theory of change that should be in place for that to happen. These are:
1. Stakeholders are implementing priority actions to reduce wildlife trafficking;
2. Key stakeholders are actively influencing others in their respective network to undertake activities to 
reduce wildlife trafficking; and
3. There are resources (trainings, materials, professional development opportunities, collaboration￾communication mechanisms) available to stakeholders to enable stakeholder continued action. The 
need for training, materials, and professional development opportunities will vary across thematic areas, 
but all networks will need a way to stay connected. This readiness assessment particularly focuses on 
whether a mechanism for network communication and collaboration exists. 
Provided below for each thematic area is a quick, subjective, and high-level consideration of the status of each 
of these elements and a categorization of the level of optimism that a sustainable network that is capable of 
continued action to reduce illegal wildlife trade will be in place at the end of Wildlife TRAPS. The network in 
each thematic area is assigned to one of four categories of optimism: (1) optimistic, (2) cautiously optimistic, (3) 
not optimistic, or (4) uncertain. It cannot be overemphasized that this is but a pulse check, done to stimulate 
discussion within the project management team and with stakeholders in each thematic area network.
Demand Reduction: There are several stakeholders implementing the priority actions defined through the 
demand reduction CAP workshop. The CITES Secretariat, a key stakeholder, championed and gained approval 
for a CITES Resolution on demand reduction that encourages governments to take action to reduce consumer 
demand of trafficked wildlife and wildlife products. The SBCC Community of Practice has taken root, is hosted 
online, and provides a platform for member sharing and communication. The Wildlife Consumer Behaviour 
Change Toolkit offers a wealth of resources for SBCC Community of Practice members to inform their work. 
It is unclear the extent to which the materials shared have spurred additional actions, but the potential is great. 
There is also the question of to what extent SBCC Community of Practice functionality may be reduced when 
Wildlife TRAPS support ends. Cautiously optimistic. 
Law Enforcement: There is a multitude of influential government agencies and organizations involved in law 
enforcement related to wildlife trafficking, and many have been involved in implementation of the priority actions 
defined through Wildlife TRAPS. Within the broad law enforcement community, there are a number of different 
networks that have different purposes, constituents, and resource needs. There is a variety of information￾sharing platforms that serve needs for different law enforcement actors (e.g., Africa-TWIX, Container Comm, 
etc.). Wildlife TRAPS has worked with many law enforcement entities in Africa and Asia on many aspects 
of wildlife trafficking (e.g., NIAPs, development of Joint Port Control Units, training for prosecutors and 
magistrates, etc.). It is unclear what network or networks are the focus. Uncertain. 
Transportation Sector: A number of champions for industry involvement in efforts to combat wildlife 
trafficking have emerged within the air transport sector as a result of their engagement in Wildlife TRAPS 
activities (notably the transportation CAP workshop) and in activities with Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful 
Transport of Endangered Species (ROUTES), which was launched by USAID as a result of the CAP workshop. 
Companies are sharing training modules and other materials with industry associations to make them available 
to other companies to adapt to their purposes. Etihad Airways, DHL, and the International Air Transport 
Association (IATA) have all taken actions independent of Wildlife TRAPS. A functional network seems to be 
coalescing. Whether the sharing of resources through industry associations will be sufficient to motivate new, 
continuing, and expanded industry efforts to combat wildlife trafficking remains to be seen but there is growing 
momentum. Optimistic.
Wildlife Forensics: The majority of key stakeholders identified by Wildlife TRAPS have been involved in 
implementing the priority actions defined at the CAP workshop as well as in new priority forensic work areas. 
The TRACE Wildlife Forensics Network has focused on advancing the agenda defined at the CAP workshop 
and, independently of Wildlife TRAPS, has conducted trainings and otherwise engaged the network of forensics 
scientists. New international relationships were forged among Asian and African forensic scientists and the 
global forensic science community through Wildlife TRAPS. The Society for Wildlife Forensic Science is an 
active community that meets regularly to discuss issues and advances in wildlife forensics. Perhaps it can be the 
platform for the network to not only share information, but also develop a shared agenda for continued action 
and provide opportunities for collaboration. Cautiously optimistic.
Financial Sector: The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has worked in close partnership with Wildlife 
TRAPS and has engaged major financial institutions in the United Kingdom through its convening of the Financial 
Institution Task Force on Illegal Wildlife Trade. The Task Force is charged with identifying actions that financial 
institutions can take to reduce illegal wildlife trade, setting up a process through which banking institutions can 
commit to those actions, and then supporting industry action. Whether the Task Force becomes fully functional 
and communicates with the broader network of financial institutions, including those intersecting trade between 
Africa and Asia, remains to be seen. There is great promise that the Task Force could be the mechanism 
through which the financial sector can define, commit to, and collaborate on needed actions to reduce illegal 
wildlife trade. Cautiously optimistic.
Community Engagement: Wildlife TRAPS’ work in community engagement has primarily focused on 
supporting learning around how to effectively engage communities in combating wildlife trafficking. With the
IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Group, IIED, and other partners, Wildlife TRAPS has supported and 
co-convened workshops to develop and build the evidence base for the Beyond Enforcement theory of change 
for effective community-led interventions. Wildlife TRAPS has also supported use of the Beyond Enforcement 
theory of change in the design of USAID projects. IIED is very active in advancing efforts to establish Beyond 
Enforcement as a shared agenda for stakeholder work in community-led interventions, though the extent to 
which it has been adopted as such by community stakeholders as well as stakeholders broadly is not yet clear. 
Wildlife TRAPS is in discussion with IIED, IUCN, and others to develop a learning and exchange platform similar 
to that for the SBCC Community of Practice. Cautiously optimistic.
40 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 41
Key Result 8. Desired outcomes from CWT actions achieved.
Key Result 8 is outside the manageable interest of Wildlife TRAPS. While Wildlife TRAPS is not accountable 
to deliver stated outcomes, the Wildlife TRAPS theory of change assumes that the project contributes to their 
achievement and thus evidence of progress towards their achievement is included in this assessment.
For this key result, the project leadership team developed outcome statements for the achievement of actions 
collectively across all thematic areas (cross-thematic) and for each thematic area. The team considered these 
outcome statements to be tentative and intended that they would be refined based on information on their 
appropriateness revealed through this assessment. Consequently, for the draft outcomes in each thematic area, 
both a summary of any evidence that outcomes are being achieved and feedback from key informants on desired 
outcomes are provided. 
Cross-Thematic Outcome Statements:
By the end of the project, in each thematic area:
1. All prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented through Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans 
are completed**;
2. All prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented with Wildlife TRAPS funding but were 
not included in Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans are completed** or show evidence of being near 
completion**;
3. There is evidence that some prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented without Wildlife 
TRAPS funding are near completion**.
* A prioritized action is one that stakeholders in a given thematic area collectively identified as a priority through the process captured in 
Result 3.
**A prioritized action is considered complete when the output (e.g., protocol defined, decision made, etc.) identified in the stated action 
is finalized. When a prioritized action is to undertake an ongoing process or activity, it will be considered complete when the process or 
activity is initiated and there is evidence that it will be sustained.
Findings:
As currently stated, the cross-thematic outcomes focus on overall achievement of the priority actions across 
all thematic areas. There was no relevant key informant input so MI assessors considered only evidence of 
outcomes achieved.
The great majority of priority actions defined through the CAP workshops (see Annex D) are open-ended in 
the sense that they are not associated with an explicit deliverable or measurable outcome. They are typically of 
the form, “help X,” “promote Y,” and “work with Z.” Thus, any one action can be implemented through many 
discrete activities by multiple stakeholders that are completed soon after they are initiated (e.g., an awareness￾raising article developed and posted, a training held, etc.). There will probably be very few activities that once 
initiated (i.e., implemented) will not be completed. To date, there is no evidence that any activity initiated to 
advance a priority action was not completed, regardless of the pathway through which it was implemented. As 
the implementation of priority actions is tracked through Key Result 4, the draft cross-thematic outcomes are 
redundant and meaningless.
It might be more useful to focus cross-thematic outcomes on the percentage of priority actions completed in 
each thematic area, or number or diversity of stakeholders involved in implementation. Alternatively, focus 
might be put on implementing activities for actions that stakeholders have not yet worked on to date. 
Demand Reduction Outcome Statements:
By the end of the project, 
1. Messaging for target audiences identified for future focus is improved;
2. There is evidence of reduced demand for illegal products.
Findings:
Progress towards outcome achievement:
Outcome 1. Efforts to date have focused on building the capacity of stakeholders to develop improved demand 
reduction messaging. These include several global capacity-building meetings and events such as the 2017 
symposium of the Oxford Martin Programme, the 2016 Solutions Showcase event at the IUCN World 
Conservation Congress, and the October 2016 Demand Reduction Workshop in Chengdu. Additionally, the 
Monitoring and Evaluation Good Practice Guidelines and Wildlife Consumer Behaviour Change Toolkit are now 
available. With the passing of the CITES resolution on demand reduction, governments have been identified 
as a target audience for improved messaging and the CITES Secretariat is working with TRAFFIC on demand 
reduction guidance for governments.
Outcome 2. Preliminary results from the Southeast Asia regional wildlife trade assessment reported in the FY 
2017 annual report indicate that “legal awareness and concern of risk is increasing, mostly in the two carving 
villages which have recently been under national and international spotlight.” Additionally, “it appears the open 
sale of ivory and other illegal species is declining in Vietnam. However, there are indications that the sale of 
illegal wildlife commodities on online forums is increasing.” 
Key informant suggested outcomes:
• Deliver targeted demand reduction strategies, especially for governments. 
• Better understand wildlife product speculation and develop demand-reduction messaging targeting 
speculators. 
Law Enforcement Outcome Statements:
By the end of the project,
1. NIAP countries in Central Africa will have improved compliance and transparency with the CITES 
process;
2. Cross-border and trans-continental coordination in wildlife crime investigations among NIAP countries 
in Central Africa will be improved;
3. In enforcement agencies in NIAP countries in Central Africa, critical capacity gaps in (a) data and 
information sharing, (b) specialized enforcement techniques, and (c) stockpile management, will be filled;
4. Multi-agency units will be in place at X ports to strengthen port transparency, screening, and security; 
and
5. In at least one jurisdiction where judiciary training was provided as a result of Wildlife TRAPS action 
prioritization, there is evidence of increased effectiveness in the prosecution of wildlife crime cases.
Findings:
Progress towards outcome achievement:
Outcomes 1-3. In service of improved implementation of NIAPs in NIAP countries in Central Africa (Cameroon, 
Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC], Gabon) and improved coordination in wildlife crime 
investigations among those countries, Wildlife TRAPS convened the 2015 CAP workshop, which resulted 
in definition of six priority actions for regional collaboration. Since then, 22 regional stakeholders have 
implemented 27 different activities to advance four of the defined priorities. NIAP coordination units have been 
established in Cameroon and the DRC.
In addition, Wildlife TRAPS engaged in numerous efforts with partners to improve data sharing, coordination, 
and collaboration in the region; and to build critical capacities in enforcement and intelligence techniques, 
and ivory stockpile management. These included several planning and information-exchange meetings with 
authorities and government agencies in the region, workshops on the use of ETIS and Africa-TWIX as data-
42 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 43
sharing platforms, and many capacity-building trainings delivered with WCO-INAMA14 and other partners to 
various law enforcement actors (e.g., enforcement agents at exit ports, customs officials, field operatives, eco 
guards, Cameroon Ministry of Forests and Wildlife [MINFOF] officials, etc.). 
Outcome 4. Wildlife TRAPS partnered with the UNODC/WCO Container Control Programme to train Joint 
Port Control Units in Ghana and Senegal, but there was no participation from Central African NIAP countries.
Outcome 5. Wildlife TRAPS partnered with UNODC and the U.S. Department of Justice in a training workshop 
for prosecutors and magistrates. Although representatives from six African countries participated, none were 
from Central African NIAP countries.
Key informant suggested outcomes:
• Increased cross-border and regional coordination and collaboration.
• Harmonization in prosecution and sentencing of wildlife crime across countries.
Transportation Sector Outcome Statements:
By the end of the project, 
1. Wildlife trafficking will be incorporated into select industry standards, practices, and protocols;
2. Awareness of wildlife transport laws, policies, and industry guidelines will be increased in targeted 
transport sector audiences;
3. Targeted transport sector companies and ports have amended their training programs to address gaps 
in staff knowledge in detecting and reporting of wildlife trafficking incidents; and
4. Targeted transport sector companies have the internal mechanisms, protocols, and systems in place 
needed for personnel to report wildlife trafficking incidents.
Findings:
Progress towards outcome achievement:
These outcomes are common to both the Wildlife TRAPS and ROUTES projects and progress reflects a 
synergistic effect of both. Highlighted here is progress directly tied to Wildlife TRAPS activities or due to actions 
taken by stakeholders informed by Wildlife TRAPS activities. 
Outcome 1. Etihad Airways adopted an Animal Welfare and Conservation Policy in October 2016. DHL revised 
its list of banned products to include terms to describe illegal wildlife products. A number of companies have 
incorporated wildlife trafficking issues into their training programs; these are summarized under Outcome 3 below.
Outcome 2. The 2015 CAP workshop co-convened by Wildlife TRAPS was very influential in raising awareness 
in the transport industry of the scope and nature of wildlife trafficking and how it intersects industry business 
operations. Airport Council International and Supply Chain Compliance reported on the workshop in industry 
publications. Later in 2015, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) updated its website to improve 
information sharing on illegal wildlife trade issues with their members and published an article in its quarterly 
newsletter. In 2017, Etihad Airways published two articles on wildlife trafficking in its in-flight magazine and DHL 
published an article highlighting its efforts to tackle illegal wildlife trade. 
Wildlife TRAPS delivered a number of presentations at workshops and meetings convened by transport-sector 
stakeholders to raise awareness of challenges and risks associated with illegal wildlife trade. These included 
presentations at a workshop convened by the United Arab Emirates General Civil Aviation Department and the 
Ministry for Climate Change and the Environment, the International Federation of Freight Forwarders (FIATA) 
World Congress and Asia-Pacific Meeting, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and 
the Pacific Regional Conference, a workshop with airlines and logistics companies operating in Cameroon, and 
at the U.S. Wildlife Trafficking Alliance Travel Sector meeting. Wildlife TRAPS also convened meetings or held 
14 INAMA is not an acronym but a word which means “wild animal” in the language of the Zambian Bemba tribe.
bilateral consultations with freight forwarder associations in Malaysia and Tanzania, the FIATA Secretariat, DHL 
e-commerce in Vietnam, United Airlines, and Airlines for America.
Outcome 3. Etihad Airways piloted three interactive learning modules focused on wildlife trafficking developed 
with Wildlife TRAPS for inclusion in its mandatory staff training. The Tanzania Association of Freight Forwarders 
(TAFFA) piloted a training module with illegal wildlife trade subjects for incorporation into their validated 
training and as an example for the wider global association. Wildlife TRAPS is working with the FIATA 
Secretariat to include learning objectives for illegal wildlife trade into the Federation’s Minimum Standards 
Diploma and associated training materials.
With partners, Wildlife TRAPS provided trainings to a variety of industry and government personnel to improve 
detection of illegal wildlife trade. These included three trainings with the UNODC/WCO Container Control 
Programme for Joint Port Control Units, training in wildlife law and compliance for Mombasa Port personnel, 
and piloting of sniffer dog technologies in Mombasa Port.
Outcome 4. DHL’s revision of its list of banned products is part of its efforts to improve its screening systems.
Key informant suggested outcomes:
• Better coordination and collaboration among enforcement and intelligence agencies.
• Reformed laws to increase punishments – some countries have light sanctions.
Wildlife Forensics Outcome Statements:
By the end of the project, 
1. A robust and scientifically compliant reference sample database for species in trade is developed; and
2. Uptake and utilization of forensic science in law enforcement efforts is improved.
Findings:
Progress towards outcome achievement:
Outcome 1. The Wildlife DNA ForCyt Forensic Reference DNA Database will include information on the 
entire mitochondrial DNA genomes of species in trade. Wildlife TRAPS supported development of the ForCyt 
methodology. A paper describing the methodology was published. Data production workshops will occur in 
2018. The Global Environment Facility contributed funding to develop a DNA reference database in Thailand.
Outcome 2. There is increasing forensic sampling of seized wildlife products. The Malaysian Wildlife Forensics 
Laboratory was able to perform DNA testing of rhino horns to determine origins through a partnership with a 
lab in South Africa that was initiated in the 2016 Wildlife TRAPS-convened CAP workshop. Forensic scientists 
from Gabon, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and TRACE performed DNA testing on 90 ivory tusks from a 2017 seizure 
in Hong Kong of 7.2 tons. In 2017, DNA testing of Thai-seized ivory was completed, and TRACE presented the 
data to the Thai CITES management authority as a demonstration of the new capacity Thailand has to test ivory 
seizures for future use. 
Efforts are underway, led by several partners with Wildlife TRAPS, to develop a set of overarching wildlife 
forensics laboratory standards and quality assurance guidelines to ensure the quality of forensic evidence for use 
in criminal prosecutions.
Key informant suggested outcomes:
• Improve capacities of forensic laboratories in Asia and Africa, both in enhanced equipment and training 
of personnel.
44 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 45
Financial Sector Outcome Statements:
By the end of the project,
1. International financial institutions improve systems to enable better reporting and investigation of 
wildlife crime offenders between financial institutions and investigative and asset recovery units; and
2. Countries’ abilities to seize and recover assets from middlemen and kingpins are improved.
Findings:
Progress towards outcome achievement:
Outcome 1. The Financial Institution Task Force on Illegal Wildlife Trade has been convened through support 
from Wildlife TRAPS; two meetings have been held to date. As part of its charge, the Task Force is envisioned 
to identify how financial institutions can improve systems to detect wildlife crime, enable better reporting to 
investigative and asset recovery units, and support investigation of wildlife crime offenders. 
To support the efforts of the Task Force and financial institutions broadly, Wildlife TRAPS continues to work with 
the Asset Recovery Interagency Networks to develop typologies of how wildlife crime is manifested in the financial 
sector. These typologies will help financial institutions identify vulnerable internal procedures, establish red-flag 
indicators, improve vetting of existing and future clients, and improve reporting requirements and financial guidelines.
In addition, TRAFFIC has entered into a strategic data-sharing agreement with Liberty Asia to provide global 
private risk-analysis agencies, such as World Check and Lexus Nexus, information on convicted wildlife crime 
offenders which they vet and then pass on to financial institutions. This information enables financial institutions 
to avoid engaging with known convicted criminals and to assess client risk based on previous criminal activities. 
Over 2,000 individual profiles have been added since the partnership began in 2016.
Outcome 2. Wildlife TRAPS has offered a number of trainings with partners to strengthen the capacity of financial 
intelligence units, wildlife investigators, customs, and judiciary to seize and recover assets. These include two 
UNODC-hosted conferences (Recovering the Assets of Wildlife and Timber Crime) and a workshop with the 
Asia Pacific Group.
Key informant suggested outcomes:
•	 Develop the Financial Institution Task Force on Illegal Wildlife Trade into a standalone, sustainable initiative 
that plugs into other sources of information, and involves any bank that wants to participate, not just those 
in the United Kingdom. 
Community Engagement Outcome Statement:
Throughout the project, there is an increasing number of projects developed using the Beyond Enforcement 
methodology.
Findings:
Progress towards outcome achievement:
The Beyond Enforcement theory of change informed the design of three USAID projects in Africa. Independent 
of Wildlife TRAPS, IUCN and IIED vetted the theory of change with communities in Africa to clarify how people 
think they are affecting the drivers of illegal wildlife trade. With IUCN and IIED, Wildlife TRAPS convened two 
workshops to build the evidence base for the theory of change and further refine it.
Key informant suggested outcomes:
•	 Make substantive policy reforms at the national level in key countries to enable communities to have a 
greater role in and benefit from wildlife management.
•	 Increase representation of communities in high-level forums for policymaking on illegal wildlife trade 
(global and regional conferences and CITES are the most important). 
•	 Support communities to mobilize and organize among themselves to enable political will to translate 
into action. Set up a funding stream to sponsor community participation in meetings. Build communities’ 
capacity to network and organize.
Assessment Question #2: Are There Particular Factors or Conditions That Have 
Impeded Progress or Facilitated Success in Achieving Project Outcomes?
Key informant interviews and surveys surfaced several factors that facilitated or impeded progress to date. 
These factors span project funding, management, implementation, and the context within which it operates. 
Major themes are identified and discussed below.
The PIO funding mechanism and the way in which it is managed have enabled the 
flexibility needed to respond to the rapidly changing landscape of wildlife crime through 
innovative approaches and partnerships.
Nearly all key informants acknowledged an enormous 
benefit afforded to Wildlife TRAPS through its funding 
as a PIO agreement. This mechanism facilitates rapid 
deployment and redirection of funds, and thus enables 
the flexibility, experimentation, and risk taking needed for 
project success. While the funding mechanism has enabled 
project success, it is the way in which USAID has managed 
the agreement and the strong, collaborative relationship 
between USAID and TRAFFIC that have driven Wildlife 
TRAPS’ progress and accomplishments. Bringing innovative 
approaches and non-traditional partnerships into the 
fight against wildlife trafficking requires out-of-the-box 
thinking and the latitude to fail in some of the attempts to 
do so. USAID has managed Wildlife TRAPS with a “very 
light rein,” which has emboldened TRAFFIC to pursue 
untried approaches and uncertain, but potentially valuable, 
relationships. For this, key informants in all sectors in 
which Wildlife TRAPS is engaged have applauded USAID’s 
leadership and courage to take the risks necessary to 
catalyze action at the scale and of the scope needed to 
effectively stop wildlife crime.
“[A previous] project I was asked to 
comment on had more specific and 
measurable deliverables. It was easier 
to tick boxes to evaluate. However, I 
feel that, arguably, this type of project, 
while harder to evaluate, is much more 
effective than projects that are designed 
around box-ticking. I think it’s a brave 
model for USAID to follow but it’s 
working. Some things will fail completely, 
but the things that will work will have a 
great legacy.” 
– Dr. Rob Ogden, Programme Director, 
TRACE Wildlife Forensics Network
TRAFFIC’s staff, expertise, and stature in the global community of individuals and 
organizations combating wildlife crime have been key to project progress. 
Project Lead Nick Ahlers’ collaborative and collegial nature, deep understanding of the issues, and responsiveness 
to stakeholder requests and rapidly unfolding opportunities were acknowledged repeatedly in interviews and 
surveys. He is considered by most key informants to be a major factor in the project’s success. Other TRAFFIC 
staff were lauded for their expertise, accessibility to stakeholders, and collaborative mindset. TRAFFIC as a whole 
is well respected, is considered a thought leader and neutral voice in the global dialogue on wildlife crime and has 
established relationships with numerous stakeholders involved in efforts to reduce wildlife crime. It is considered 
a strong implementing partner. A few key informants shared their sense that TRAFFIC’s success in implementing 
Wildlife TRAPS is driven by the personalities and specific skill sets of particular individuals rather than the 
organization having a deep bench in a set of core capacities. To the extent this is true, concerns were raised about 
TRAFFIC’s capacity to maintain its level of success in implementing Wildlife TRAPS should there be a change in 
personnel or if project needs require time and expertise that exceed that currently available from critical personnel.
46 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 47
Increased communication of what the project has done and is doing in each thematic 
area, and the implications for ongoing and future work, may increase further stakeholder 
action. Most key informants mentioned that their primary source of information about Wildlife TRAPS 
activities was through conversations with Nick Ahlers and, secondarily, through presentations made by TRAFFIC 
staff. Some noted their difficulty in finding project information and products online. Nearly all informants felt 
they did not have a comprehensive picture of all the project is doing in all thematic areas and what has been 
accomplished. Some, notably mission staff, have a strong desire to better understand the full scope of Wildlife 
TRAPS activities, how all the pieces fit together, and what it all adds up to for each thematic area. With this 
deeper understanding, missions felt they would be in a better position to leverage project resources and 
achievements through their programming. As one informant commented, “in the absence of knowing what is 
there, it’s hard to know what and how we can use what’s been done.” It was noted that the annual reports 
provide a lot of detail but are “overwhelming” and “difficult to follow.” It is felt that a more concerted effort to 
communicate project activities and outcomes, and the implications of the work of Wildlife TRAPS for others’ 
work in combating wildlife crime, would expand the project’s catalytic effect and impacts.
Uncooperative behaviors among stakeholders have sometimes impeded collaboration and 
undermined progress. Interviews revealed that uncooperative behaviors by some individuals in all sectors 
in which Wildlife TRAPS works are a reality and can inhibit the collaborations needed to reduce wildlife crime. 
These behaviors have included territoriality and competitiveness by NGO personnel about partner relationships 
and areas of work, reluctance of scientists to share data and methodologies, and unwillingness or hesitancy of 
government officials and industry to engage due to concerns about perceived blame for their role in wildlife 
trafficking. Many informants underscored that it is an individual rather than their organization or institution that 
may be uncooperative. As such, a seeming lack of cooperation from an organization or institution can often 
be transcended through improved trust afforded by personal relationships with the individual or with others 
in their organization or institution. The collaborative nature of Project Lead, Nick Ahlers, and the general 
perception of TRAFFIC as a neutral, evidence-driven, NGO have gone a long way in building necessary bridges. 
Factors beyond project control have hampered progress. As with any project, there may be laws, 
institutional processes, or unforeseen developments that constrain or delay project operations. For Wildlife 
TRAPS, these include restrictions imposed by the Leahy Act and inherent delays in product-review processes. 
Also, the unforeseen but welcome expansion in project funding and duration created an unanticipated need for 
project support staff. Hiring a dedicated communications person became critical when the project was expanded 
to five and then seven years. Also, in hindsight, having a monitoring and evaluation specialist to support the 
project would have been valuable.
Assessment Question #3: What Evidence Exists to Date of the Ability of 
Wildlife TRAPS to Influence or Catalyze the Actions of Others in Combating Wildlife 
Trafficking?
The intent of this assessment question is to explore the extent to which Wildlife TRAPS’ activities have 
influenced the nature (e.g., partners involved, stakeholders’ roles, species or geographies prioritized, type of 
actions taken, how actions are implemented, etc.) of stakeholder actions to combat wildlife trafficking and the 
degree to which that influence has resulted in or catalyzed new partnerships or new directions for stakeholder 
work. In Key Result 2, the percent of Wildlife TRAPS’ direct-engagement activities that were Wildlife TRAPS￾advised is used as an indicator of the level of influence the project exerts. This assessment question considers 
broader evidence of Wildlife TRAPS’ influence.
Wildlife TRAPS’ influence on stakeholder action is in part evidenced by its success in achieving the outcomes 
defined for the key results in its theory of change within its manageable interest: 
•	 Stakeholder use of the assessment reports (Key Result 1); 
•	 The level of influence the project exerted through its direct-engagement activities (Key Result 2); 
•	 Prioritized actions defined through CAP workshops or other collaborative activities (Key Result 3); 
•	 Stakeholder implementation of priority actions defined through a CAP-workshop process (Key Result 4); 
•	 Strengthened stakeholder networks (Key Result 5); and 
•	 Stakeholder use of or participation in project-provided trainings, materials, professional development 
opportunities, and mechanisms to enable network collaboration and communication (Key Result 6). 
This evidence is detailed under Assessment Question #1 and will not be reiterated here. Rather, a high-level 
summary of the general nature and scope of the influence of Wildlife TRAPS is provided based on this data and 
further input from key informants. In assessing progress in achieving Key Result 4 under Assessment Question 
#1, evidence of the catalytic effect of Wildlife TRAPS was limited to evidence that stakeholders implemented 
collaboratively defined priority actions without project support. For this assessment question, broader evidence 
is provided from key informant input on how Wildlife TRAPS has catalyzed new partnerships or directions (new 
priorities, new stakeholder role, etc.) for their work.
Determining whether a given stakeholder action was influenced or catalyzed by Wildlife TRAPS involves issues 
of interpretation (i.e., was this a new action, partnership, or role for a stakeholder?) and attribution (i.e., were 
changes in aspects of stakeholder action the result of Wildlife TRAPS activities?). As such, this analysis can only 
suggest the scope and nature of the project’s influence and catalytic effect. 
Influence. Through its many activities and products, Wildlife TRAPS is influencing what stakeholders are 
doing to reduce wildlife trafficking, how they are doing it, and with whom they are working. The technical 
information and expertise it has provided through assessments and other resources have been useful to many 
stakeholders in improving understanding of the background and context for an issue, establishing priorities for 
their work, refining strategic approaches, improving the effectiveness of their work, and identifying opportunities 
for collaboration. Wildlife TRAPS’ efforts to involve new stakeholders and build and strengthen connections 
between stakeholders has led to new and stronger collaborations within countries, between regions, and across 
continents, and also across the diverse sectors that interface with wildlife crime. In addition, the Project Lead 
was invited to serve on an advisory committee or working group in other stakeholder organizations, notably the 
Anti-Money Laundering Expert Group led by Prince Charles’ International Sustainability Unit and the Advisory 
Committee of WCO-INAMA.
However, many key informants did not know that the TRAFFIC personnel they were working with, resources 
they were using, or activities they were involved in were part of a project called Wildlife TRAPS. Consequently, 
there is little recognition, beyond among those directly involved in project management and implementation, of 
the influence that the Wildlife TRAPS project has had. Furthermore, because many project activities have been 
integrated to varying degrees into TRAFFIC’s various work streams, it is difficult to differentiate the influence of 
Wildlife TRAPS versus that of TRAFFIC or other TRAFFIC projects (e.g., ROUTES). 
Catalytic effect. Exactly what characterizes a catalytic effect of Wildlife TRAPS has not been explicitly 
defined by the project, and there has not been a systematic approach to capture those catalytic effects. In this 
assessment, catalytic effects are considered (1) actions implemented by stakeholders without project support 
(funding, staff time, or staff travel) that build on project work streams (CAP-defined priorities, new priority 
work areas), and (2) activities and events that key informants relayed were precipitated by the activities of 
Wildlife TRAPS. These catalytic effects are provided below.
• In the Transportation Sector, there is much evidence of the catalytic effect of Wildlife TRAPS:
o An industry participant in the CAP workshop called the workshop a “pivotal meeting” as it 
helped overcome hesitancy to become involved; there was no sense of blame but rather a focus 
on positive things they could do to curb wildlife trafficking.
o As a result of the traction developed with the transport industry at the CAP workshop, USAID 
launched ROUTES, a new activity specifically focused on working with the transport industry to 
reduce trafficking.
48 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 49
o As mentioned under Result 4, there are both companies and industry associations undertaking 
independent activities to reduce transport of illegal wildlife and wildlife products. 
o As a result of work with Wildlife TRAPS and TRAFFIC, wildlife trafficking training has 
been incorporated or is being piloted for incorporation into the training programs of both 
international and country-specific freight forwarder associations.
• In Wildlife Forensics, Wildlife TRAPS has catalyzed new opportunities for collaboration, new Asia-Africa 
relationships, and capacity building for forensic scientists:
o Although the CAP workshop was focused on mechanisms to internationalize RhODIS® for use 
in individual profiling of rhinoceros, it resulted in stakeholders identifying many other areas for 
their collaboration and priority action.
o As a result of networking at the wildlife forensics CAP workshop, Malaysian forensic scientists 
enlisted the aid of South African scientists to analyze rhino horns for origin identification.
o As mentioned under Result 4, independent of Wildlife TRAPS, TRACE colleague Dr. Ross 
McEwing participated in meetings with and contributed to a 4-day training for forensics 
colleagues in Hong Kong.
• In Law Enforcement, Wildlife TRAPS catalyzed effective international enforcement collaboration and 
Africa-Asia efforts to conserve the South African abalone:
o Wildlife TRAPS sponsored Asia-based customs officials to participate in a training offered in partnership 
with WCO-INAMA and CITES in Namibia which was designed to develop an operational plan for 
enforcement collaboration between Africa and Asia. Two customs officials who attended the training 
made a successful ivory seizure in Bangkok as result of the operational plan developed in training.
o Several key informants cited the Wildlife TRAPS-supported assessments of the illegal trade in 
South African Abalone and related project activities as the catalyst for the development of a 
proposal by the South African government for a CITES III listing for the species, trainings for 
South African custom officials in species identification funded by the Endangered Wildlife Trust, 
and trade monitoring discussions with South Africa and Chinese authorities.
• In the Financial Sector, with funding by Wildlife TRAPS, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) 
formed the bank-led Financial Institution Task Force on Illegal Wildlife Trade to continue the work of 
Prince Charles’ International Sustainability Unit on Anti-Money Laundering. The Task Force will work 
to establish a set of commitments for signature by participating financial institutions, as well as proposed 
actions to be taken in support of those commitments. A key informant noted that the Task Force would 
not have been created without Wildlife TRAPS support.
• In Demand Reduction, key informants considered Wildlife TRAPS catalytic effect in demand reduction 
a “work in progress,” but noted that the CAP workshop was “groundbreaking” and the “largest of 
its kind” in bringing together diverse stakeholders. It was considered instrumental in bringing social 
and behavioral science into the broad dialogue around demand reduction and increasing the appetite 
for its application. The workshop led to Wildlife TRAPS investment in several resources to support 
stakeholder action that, as of end of Q4 FY2017, have been broadly used: Wildlife Consumer Behavior 
Change Toolkit (50,000 visits), SBCC Community of Practice platform (121 active participants), and 
SBCC monthly newsletters (278 subscribers). 
• In Community Engagement, Wildlife TRAPS has influenced the dialogue and catalyzed efforts to advance 
the Beyond Enforcement theory of change.
o IIED published an analysis of evidence for the assumptions in the Beyond Enforcement theory 
of change.15
o The Wildlife TRAPS Project Lead participated in the development of a Broad Agency Announcement 
(BAA) to combat wildlife crime in the South Africa region. Through his participation, the BAA was 
15 Booker, F. and D. Roe. 2017. First Line of Defence? A review of evidence on the effectiveness of engaging communities to tackle illegal wildlife
 trade. IIED, London.
informed by the Beyond Enforcement theory of change and has now been procured. Two other 
cooperative agreements in Africa have been informed by the Beyond Enforcement framework.
o A key informant shared that the Beyond Enforcement theory of change was presented and 
discussed at Wildlife TRAPS-sponsored conferences in Vietnam and Cameroon though 
attendees were not always able to understand or use it well. Wildlife TRAPS was, however, 
helpful in engaging local leaders and decision makers in the issues surrounding community 
engagement in wildlife crime at those conferences.
Assessment Question #4: Are There Particular Factors or Conditions That 
Have Impeded or Facilitated the Ability of Wildlife TRAPS to Influence or Catalyze the 
Actions of Others in Combating Wildlife Trafficking?
The increasing global resonance of wildlife trafficking as an issue created an enabling 
environment for Wildlife TRAPS. As the project launched, awareness of wildlife trafficking as a global 
crisis was growing outside of the biodiversity conservation community due to media and government attention. 
This growing awareness led to increasing recognition of the potential interfaces between illegal wildlife trade 
and business sectors such as transportation and banking and the need for those sectors to become involved in 
combating this criminal activity. As one key informant relayed, this recognition “helps TRAPS to fall on fertile 
ears.” The timing of the project has thus helped facilitate its ability to influence and catalyze the actions of both 
traditional and new actors in reducing wildlife trafficking.
The collaborative nature of TRAFFIC staff and the perception of TRAFFIC as a neutral 
voice have engendered trusting relationships with stakeholders and increased their 
willingness to engage with Wildlife TRAPS. As mentioned under Assessment Question #2, Wildlife 
TRAPS project staff, and TRAFFIC broadly, have made strong strides in building and strengthening the 
stakeholder community engaged in combating wildlife trafficking. Nick Ahlers is referred to repeatedly as a 
“bridge builder” and TRAFFIC as a whole is recognized for its ability to build constructive dialogue among 
diverse stakeholders and around contentious issues. One informant noted, however, that TRAFFIC’s efforts may 
be insufficient to engage needed stakeholder organizations to “come under the big tent” because of skepticism 
in some government agencies of the role of NGOs in the fight against wildlife trafficking, and territoriality and 
competitiveness among NGOs. Along similar lines, another informant thought that Wildlife TRAPS might have 
greater impact if major stakeholders (e.g., INTERPOL, WCO) were engaged to assist in network building and 
inform the strategic direction of the project.
Having a collaboratively defined list of priority actions may not be enough to influence 
and catalyze stakeholders to take action. As was noted in Result 4, several key informants 
acknowledged the great value in bringing people together to discuss and focus shared priorities, while also 
recognizing there is a challenge in keeping the momentum going and in translating commitments into action. 
This suggests that perhaps a list of collaboratively defined priority actions may not necessarily be a shared action 
agenda. Continued dialogue is key to socializing and refining the list of priority actions, reinforcing commitments, 
and supporting, motivating, and acknowledging stakeholder action. Influential stakeholders could play an 
important role in doing this but that may not be enough. It might be valuable for Wildlife TRAPS to reconnect 
in some way with the participants in the CAP workshops to solicit refinements in the list of priority actions, 
surface any activities they may have implemented to advance the priority actions and lessons learned, reaffirm 
stakeholder commitment to action, and explore ways to support them. One informant suggested that formation 
of thematic area working groups might be a way to strengthen networks, such a body could also drive the 
transformation of a list of priority action into a shared action agenda. 
50 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 51
The broad scope of Wildlife TRAPS was necessary at its outset and enabled rapid 
progress in engaging new stakeholders and identifying new opportunities to restrict 
criminal activities, but a more targeted focus going forward may lead to a greater final 
project impact. One key informant noted that illegal wildlife trafficking involves a “complicated web of 
actors, players, issues, countries, and value chains” and felt that Wildlife TRAPS is “so big and involves so 
much that a healthy dose of realism is needed” as the “ambition of the project itself may impede it.” Other key 
informants echoed this need for strategic focus going forward to ensure that the project’s impact is “more than 
the sum of its parts.” In other words, instead of advancing efforts to reduce wildlife crime on a broad array 
of fronts, the project should focus on those fronts where it has the greatest potential to effect change in its 
remaining time. Key informants acknowledged the need for Wildlife TRAPS at its outset to explore all aspects 
of wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia to understand how wildlife trafficking is manifested in different 
sectors, and to identify and leverage opportunities to engage with any sector. They noted, however, that there 
are now many more actors involved in the fight against wildlife trafficking and suggested that rethinking Wildlife 
TRAPS’ niche may be in order with a focus on particular aspects of a value chain, specific capacities to be 
built, or explicit stakeholder networks. Some key informants felt that a tightened focus on creating synergies 
to combat wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia would be valuable but encouraged project management 
to take a step back and reassess project focus in a deliberate way that, ideally, involved stakeholders within 
and beyond USAID. One informant suggested that having some iteration of a learning exercise (e.g., pause and 
reflect) could be very informative.
52 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 53
VI. CONCLUSIONS 
Assessment Question #1
Considering the key results identified along the entire Wildlife TRAPS results chain (See Figure 2 on page 12), 
there is evidence that progress is being made on achieving the outcomes defined for all results, but the strength 
of that evidence varies across the key results. For Result 5, some means is needed to assess stakeholders’ 
connectivity in the thematic-area networks and provide the evidence needed to fully demonstrate achievement 
of the outcome. Progress towards Result 7 is merely suggested by the quick and subjective readiness assessment 
undertaken by MI assessors. Outcomes for Result 8 should be refined based on stakeholder input and would 
benefit from better articulation of what success looks like. Wildlife TRAPS should define outcomes for the new 
work areas identified for collaborative action. Specific conclusions for each key result are given below. 
• Key Result 1: The nine assessments produced through Wildlife TRAPS support have provided 
needed data and analysis and are used to inform and prioritize stakeholder work.
• Key Result 2: Wildlife TRAPS has participated extensively in the global dialogue on wildlife trafficking 
as an activity convener, co-convener, advisor, and participant. Wildlife TRAPS and TRAFFIC as a whole 
are greatly respected for their technical expertise and thought leadership. Wildlife TRAPS has most 
frequently engaged with stakeholders as a technical advisor. Using that frequency as one measure of 
its influence on stakeholder activities, Wildlife TRAPS influence has increased since project launch, but 
data are insufficient to tell whether its influence continues to increase. There is little recognition among 
key informants of Wildlife TRAPS as a project; rather, its influence is expressed through the thought 
leadership and relationships of the staff in the organizations (USAID and TRAFFIC) implementing it.
• Key Result 3: Wildlife TRAPS has prioritized actions in four thematic areas by convening CAP workshops 
and has collaboratively identified five new work areas in four thematic areas for priority action. The CAP￾workshop process was considered valuable to several workshop participants in raising the awareness of wildlife 
trafficking issues; building trust and relationships; and sharing knowledge, expertise, and ideas among diverse 
stakeholders. Key informants noted the importance of using a collaborative process to define shared priorities 
and generate a general sense of commitment, though some workshop participants had hoped for more focused 
sets of recommended explicit activities rather than recommendations for general types of action.
• Key Result 4: The majority of priority CWT actions defined through the CAP-workshop processes 
in four thematic areas have been implemented through activities of Wildlife TRAPS and stakeholders. A 
significant majority of those activities were accomplished through Wildlife TRAPS’ work plans though 
there is evidence that stakeholders are implementing some activities independent of Wildlife TRAPS. 
The limited evidence to date for catalyzed implementation of priority actions may be due, at least in part, 
to the lack of a systematic effort by the project to capture these catalytic effects. That evidence is now 
only being learned opportunistically. It is not appropriate to categorize activities implemented through 
Pathway B as activities catalyzed by Wildlife TRAPS. Several key informants noted the challenge in 
maintaining the momentum generated at a CAP workshop so that commitment to action becomes action. 
• Key Result 5: Wildlife TRAPS has been valuable in building networks with and within governments, 
civil society, and industry. It has overcome the skepticism that some government agencies have of the 
value of NGOs in efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. Wildlife TRAPS’ planned stakeholder-mapping 
exercises would provide evidence, not available now, of how and to what degree it has strengthened the 
networks of stakeholders in each thematic area and whether it is engaging all critical key stakeholders (a 
concern raised by one key informant). Questions were raised as to whether the IUCN network is being 
adequately leveraged.
• Key Result 6: Wildlife TRAPS has provided a range of trainings, materials, professional development 
opportunities, and mechanisms to support collaboration and communication of stakeholders. Trainings 
to law enforcement and the transportation sector were the most frequently provided resource. 
Among all the resources provided, key informants specifically noted the value of the Wildlife Behavior 
Change Toolkit and the sponsorship of Asian and African forensic scientists to attend workshops and 
conferences. There was an expressed need for Wildlife TRAPS to more broadly share the materials it 
has produced and make them easier to find online.
• Key Result 7: Based on a rapid and subjective assessment of the status of the conditions that the 
Wildlife TRAPS theory of change assumes will lead to sustainable, action-taking networks, there is 
reason to be optimistic or cautiously optimistic that the networks in the Transportation Sector, 
Financial Sector, Demand Reduction, Wildlife Forensics, and Community Engagement can be sustained 
and will undertake actions to reduce wildlife trafficking beyond the life of Wildlife TRAPS. 
• Key Result 8: Although the outcomes defined for each thematic area were considered tentative 
during development of the revised monitoring framework for Wildlife TRAPS because there were 
uncertainties about their feasibility and appropriateness, there has been at least some progress made in 
achieving most of the defined outcomes in all thematic areas. Much of this progress is around building 
the skills needed by specific actors to achieve the desired outcomes, but in some cases the outcome 
itself is beginning to be achieved. Stakeholder suggestions for desired outcomes generally aligned with 
the tentative outcomes or expanded upon them. The one exception is Community Engagement, where 
the suggested outcomes go far beyond the output-focused draft outcome. The draft cross-thematic 
outcomes are redundant with the outcomes of Result 4.
Assessment Question #2 • The PIO mechanism used to fund Wildlife TRAPS, and the spirit in which it is implemented and 
managed, provides the flexibility to rapidly respond to emerging opportunities; pilot innovative 
approaches; and pursue uncertain, but potentially valuable, relationships to combat wildlife trafficking. 
• TRAFFIC’s staff, expertise, and stature in the global community working to reduce illegal wildlife trade 
have given it influence to shape priority actions, mobilize and catalyze stakeholders to take action, and 
build the stakeholder networks needed for sustained action in combating wildlife trafficking. Much of 
that influence is due to the particular skills and personalities of its individual staff.
• There is widespread acknowledgement that a great deal of exciting work is underway, but multiple 
stakeholders not directly involved in project implementation or management expressed difficulty 
in keeping abreast of all Wildlife TRAPS is doing and what it has achieved in each thematic area, 
and how its work could inform their own ongoing and future work. There is a strongly expressed 
need for Wildlife TRAPS to make a “more concerted effort” to communicate project activities and 
accomplishments, as well as the implications of its work for the efforts of others in reducing illegal 
wildlife trade.
• Lack of cooperation on the part of some stakeholders is a reality and has sometimes impeded 
collaboration and undermined progress. However, the collaborative nature of the Project Lead, 
Nick Ahlers, and the general perception of TRAFFIC as a neutral, evidence-driven NGO has allowed 
TRAFFIC to build trust with individuals and organizations. 
• As in any project, there have been factors beyond Wildlife TRAPS’ control that have hampered 
progress. Laws (e.g., the Leahy Act’s time-consuming requirements for vetting participants in advance 
of training) and inherent delays in product-review processes have constrained or delayed project 
operations and progress. The welcome but unforeseen expansion in the funding and duration of the 
project created unanticipated needs for project support staff.
Assessment Question #3 • Through its many activities and products, Wildlife TRAPS is influencing what stakeholders are doing 
to reduce wildlife trafficking, how they are doing it, and with whom they are working. Its influence on 
stakeholder action is in large part evidenced by its success in achieving the outcomes defined for the key 
results in its theory of change. There is, however, little recognition of the influence of Wildlife TRAPS as
a project. The work of Wildlife TRAPS, ROUTES, and TRAFFIC are co-mingled in the minds of many. 
54 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 55
• Wildlife TRAPS’ catalytic effect is evidenced in most thematic areas and is growing. Wildlife TRAPS 
has catalyzed new partnerships, commitments, stakeholder actions, and projects. Most notable is 
the successful ivory seizure made in Bangkok in 2017 by two customs officials as a result of their 
implementing an operational plan for enhanced working relationships between African and Asian 
enforcement personnel that was developed in a Wildlife TRAPS training.
• Key informant interviews were a rich source of information on activities catalyzed by Wildlife TRAPS, 
and a more comprehensive canvassing of stakeholders would be valuable.
Assessment Question #4 • When Wildlife TRAPS was launched, awareness of wildlife trafficking as a global crisis was growing 
outside of the biodiversity conservation community due to media and government attention. The global 
community increasingly recognizes potential interfaces between illegal wildlife trade and business sectors 
such as transportation and banking, and the need for business sectors to engage in combating this 
criminal activity. This has created an enabling environment for Wildlife TRAPS to influence and catalyze 
the actions of both traditional and new actors in reducing wildlife trafficking.
• The collaborative nature of TRAFFIC staff and the perception of TRAFFIC as a neutral voice have 
engendered trusting relationships with stakeholders and increased their willingness to engage with 
Wildlife TRAPS. One key informant cautioned, however, that despite TRAFFIC’s great skill and success 
in bridge building, it alone may not be able to exert the influence needed to engage certain stakeholders.
• Although collaborative priority-setting exercises such as CAP workshops are critical, continued 
collective engagement of workshop participants might be needed to maintain momentum and translate 
commitment into action.
• Wildlife TRAPS operates on many fronts in the fight against illegal wildlife trade and has accomplished a 
great deal on those fronts. The landscape of actors involved in efforts to combat wildlife trafficking has 
changed dramatically since the project started. Multiple key informants suggest that as Wildlife TRAPS 
enters its final years, it may be timely to reassess its niche and tighten focus in those areas where it has 
the greatest potential to effect change in its remaining time.
Further Conclusions • In its innovative approach to effecting catalytic change, Wildlife TRAPS is one of the first projects of 
its kind to be funded by E3/FAB. As such, it offers the opportunity to identify elements in its design or 
implementation that might be useful to consider replicating in future projects with a similar vision. Three 
elements in particular stand out for this consideration. First, having a flexible funding mechanism that is 
managed to allow experimentation and failure has been important in Wildlife TRAPS’ success to date. 
Second, Wildlife TRAPS’ three-phase design16 was time-consuming but important given the complex and 
rapidly changing nature of wildlife trafficking, and the recognition that new approaches were needed to 
achieve impact at the scale demanded by the problem. Lastly, although this cannot be easily replicated 
but can be aspired to, the importance of having project staff and an implementing partner that are 
natural collaborators and perceived as not having their own agenda cannot be overemphasized.
• The vision of Wildlife TRAPS, to catalyze and position networks of multi-sectoral stakeholders to work 
together to solve the large and complex problem of wildlife trafficking, bears many similarities to that of 
initiatives designed for collective impact. Collective impact is the “commitment of a group of important 
actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem.”17 Collective 
impact initiatives are focused on effecting the systemic change needed to address large-scale social and 
environmental challenges. They require that “funders support a long-term process of social change 
16 The three phases are: Phase I – Assessment and Priority Setting, Phase II – Collaborative Action Planning, Phase III – Review and 
Respond (i.e., implementation of collaboratively defined priority actions). See the Introduction on page 8 for further discussion.
17 Kania, J. and M. Kramer. 2011. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011: 36-41. 
without identifying any particular solution in advance. They must be willing to let grantees steer the work 
and have the patience to stay with an initiative for years, recognizing that social change can come from the 
gradual improvement of an entire system over time, not just from a single breakthrough by an individual 
organization.”18 Five conditions, identified through research and affirmed through the implementation of 
both privately and publicly funded projects, characterize successful collective impact initiatives:
1. Common agenda – Participants have a shared vision for change based on a common 
understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed-upon actions;
2. Shared measurement systems – Having agreement on how success will be measured and 
reported is essential to advancing a common agenda and enabling adaptive management;
3. Mutually reinforcing activities – Participants undertake the actions at which they excel in a 
way that supports and is coordinated with the actions of others;
4. Continuous communication – Ongoing communication among participants is necessary 
to build mutual trust, develop a common vocabulary, and develop meaningful and feasible 
measurement systems; and
5. Support from a dedicated “backbone” organization – Dedicated staff to support and 
manage the initiative through facilitation, and project and data management.
Although Wildlife TRAPS does not reflect all the characteristics of a collective impact project, consideration of 
how creating the five conditions for collective impact might position Wildlife TRAPS for even greater impact 
could perhaps inform the continued evolution of the project. This is further explored under Recommendations.
18 Ibid.
56 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 57
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 
Reassess and refine as necessary the strategic focus of Wildlife TRAPS as it nears completion.
•	 With the completion of this assessment and with less than two years to go before Wildlife TRAPS ends, 
it may be timely to reconsider where Wildlife TRAPS should focus its efforts to have the potential to 
effect the greatest change.
•	 Key informants suggested a focus on areas where there is a less-crowded landscape of actors (e.g., 
strengthening linkages between Africa and Asia). Other possibilities include a focus on strengthening 
and enabling the stakeholder networks for those thematic areas that show greatest potential to become 
sustainable by project’s end or on thematic-area outcomes that have shown good progress and with a 
more focused effort could be achieved by project’s end. 
•	 Consider conducting a pause-and-reflect exercise with a small subset of key stakeholders (including 
USAID missions) to review assessment findings, obtain a more comprehensive picture of what has been 
accomplished to date, identify lessons learned, and inform strategic focus of the project going forward. 
•	 Consider involving missions (especially those that already contributed funds to Wildlife TRAPS but also 
others with significant investment from other sources in combating wildlife crime) more extensively 
in annual work planning to continue to refine strategic focus and project implementation as Wildlife 
TRAPS draw to a close. 
Frame stakeholder discussions and project communications around Wildlife TRAPS’ 
intended outcomes, and increase overall communication of project activities, outputs, 
and outcomes.
•	 Although explicit outcome statements for Wildlife TRAPS’ work have only been articulated through this 
assessment process, those outcomes are encompassed in what the project set out to accomplish: (1) 
engaging stakeholders in multiple sectors, (2) increasing stakeholder awareness and understanding of the 
issues associated with wildlife trafficking, (3) identifying and implementing priority actions and priority 
work areas for stakeholder action, and (4) positioning stakeholders for continued action beyond the life 
of Wildlife TRAPS. It is not clear to what extent stakeholders in each thematic area are aware of these 
intended project outcomes, and of thematic area-specific outcomes that have been identified more recently.
Even at this late stage in the project’s life, there is value in increasing communication of Wildlife TRAPS’ 
intended outcomes to stakeholders to provide a framework for them to better understand the rationale 
for Wildlife TRAPS’s various and diverse activities and, perhaps more importantly, to better understand 
how their work intersects or can intersect the work of Wildlife TRAPS and carry it forward. Thus, 
when planning activities with stakeholders or providing project updates to stakeholders, consider linking 
activities and results achieved in any thematic area to the project’s intended outcomes for that thematic 
area. At a minimum, convey linkages to the implementation of collaboratively defined priority actions 
(Key Result 4), the building of a sustainable network for continued action to reduce illegal wildlife trade 
(Key Result 7), and the achievement of thematic-area specific outcomes (Key Result 8).
•	 Related to the above, project work plans and annual reports should ideally be structured in a way that clearly 
links planned activities and results achieved to the intended outcomes articulated in the project’s theory 
of change. Although it may not be time or cost-efficient to revise the structure of Wildlife TRAPS’ work 
plans and annual reports at this juncture, consider at least organizing these documents by thematic area and 
structuring the content for each around assessments completed, priority actions implemented, resources 
provided, progress towards network building, and progress towards thematic-area specific outcomes. 
•	 Provide periodic updates to mission staff (not just those that contributed funding to Wildlife TRAPS) on 
project activities, results achieved, lessons learned, and the implications of those results for their work. 
Per above, frame those updates around Wildlife TRAPS’ intended outcomes. This could perhaps be 
done through E3/FAB’s regularly convened calls with missions working on wildlife crime issues. 
•	 Make project-developed resources and project information easy to find and accessible online. Consider 
maintaining a regularly updated webpage on TRAFFIC.org and/or USAID’s Biodiversity Conservation 
Gateway for the Wildlife TRAPS project that provides links to assessments, other resources developed 
with project funds, summaries of project activities, press releases, etc.
Develop the identity of Wildlife TRAPS as a project with a vision and goals separate from 
other TRAFFIC and stakeholder initiatives and better socialize with stakeholders.
•	 The need to differentiate Wildlife TRAPS from other projects is not about enabling the attribution 
of credit for achievements but rather about the value a distinct identity or brand could provide in 
coalescing stakeholders around its broader vision. If stakeholders collectively understand that Wildlife 
TRAPS is about finding and supporting innovative and multi-sectoral approaches to reduce wildlife crime, 
they have the context to think about what new relationships and approaches could be brought to bear. 
As one key informant put it, Wildlife TRAPS is the “Shark Tank” for innovation in combating wildlife 
trafficking. MI assessors acknowledge that project staff are exploring possibilities for innovation and new 
approaches in all conversations with stakeholders, but if stakeholders know that everyone has been 
engaged in similar conversations, it opens the door for more collective discussion among stakeholders 
or conversations between different sets of stakeholders to brainstorm new approaches and partnerships 
to reduce illegal wildlife trade. CAP workshops provided a forum for such collective brainstorming but 
the workshops are done, and the collective conversation needs to continue. 
•	 Some sort of branding of the lists of priority actions that emerged from the CAP workshops may 
also help with the challenge discussed earlier in moving commitments to action to actual action. The 
comment made by one key informant that they were motivated by their sense of obligation as a 
signatory to a set of priority actions defined by another entity suggests that feeling part of a larger, 
recognized movement may be strong motivation for taking action. To facilitate continued stakeholder 
efforts to advance the identified priority actions post-Wildlife TRAPS, it may be more effective if the lists 
of priority actions are identified as products resulting from USAID activities (in partnership with some 
set of key stakeholder organizations) rather than from Wildlife TRAPS specifically.
•	 Differentiate the work of Wildlife TRAPS and ROUTES. These two projects implemented by TRAFFIC 
share many of the same outcomes and they jointly implement some activities. While it is critical that 
projects leverage and reinforce each other, it is also important to avoid redundancy.
Assess whether there are characteristics of collective impact initiatives that would be 
useful to incorporate into Wildlife TRAPS.
Wildlife TRAPS seems to have similarities with other collective impact initiatives. The extent to which the five 
conditions identified for the success of collective impact initiatives are expressed in Wildlife TRAPS and the 
possibilities for strengthening those conditions are briefly explored below. 
•	 Common agenda. Wildlife TRAPS has done much to build a common understanding among 
stakeholders of the magnitude and multi-sectoral nature of wildlife trafficking. Undoubtedly, most 
stakeholders have a vision for what needs to change, and those visions align broadly. The possible value 
in coalescing Wildlife TRAPS stakeholders around an explicit shared vision is discussed above. While 
Wildlife TRAPS has enabled the collaborative definition of needed actions through its CAP workshops, 
it is questionable whether these lists of action constitute a shared agenda. There may be opportunities 
for Wildlife TRAPS to further motivate stakeholders to implement and refine jointly defined actions by 
reengagement of the stakeholders that crafted the priority lists either directly or through thematic area￾specific stakeholder working groups.
•	 Shared measurement systems. It is likely that there is little appetite among stakeholders to 
adopt new monitoring and/or reporting responsibilities. It might be useful to have conversations with 
stakeholders about how they measure and report success and identify areas of overlap or alignment. 
There might be opportunities to socialize USAID’s Combating Wildlife Crime Toolkit among stakeholders.
58 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 59
•	 Mutually reinforcing activities. Wildlife TRAPS’ frequent advisory role to stakeholders enables 
synergies rather than overlaps in stakeholder actions, but several stakeholders expressed a need for 
understanding the bigger picture of who is doing what across the landscape of actors. Here again, a 
network mapping or other analysis could be useful. 
•	 Continuous communication. This condition is focused on the need for continuous communication 
among stakeholders. Wildlife TRAPS convenes, advises, and participates in many meetings that involve 
a broad array of stakeholders; indeed, it has been the most frequent activity it has engaged in to date. 
For the purposes of reinforcing a shared vision and implementing shared action agendas to reduce 
illegal wildlife trade, it might be useful to find ways that stakeholders in different thematic areas can 
communicate and discuss their respective action agendas and desired outcomes. 
•	 Dedicated staff to support and manage the project. Wildlife TRAPS project staff fulfill this role.
Implement a systematic approach to monitoring project outputs and outcomes aligned 
with the revised monitoring framework, and regularly review progress to extract lessons 
learned and inform adaptive management.
•	 Complete the network analyses of stakeholders in each thematic area in which Wildlife TRAPS will 
continue to work to inform further stakeholder-engagement activities and to provide a baseline to 
assess progress in achieving further network growth and strengthening. It is essential that the network 
analyses include the strength and nature of the relationships among stakeholders not just that of 
relationships between stakeholders and Wildlife TRAPS. Once baselines are established, collect the 
necessary data going forward to repeat the analyses at the end of the project. Given the changing 
landscape of global efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, consider assessing whether all key stakeholders 
have been identified in each thematic area and are (or will be) appropriately engaged. With less than 
two years remaining for Wildlife TRAPS implementation, there may not be sufficient time to complete 
baseline and end-of-project network analyses in any, let alone all, of the thematic areas. This would 
be a significant missed opportunity, and some effort should be made, perhaps through consultation 
with select stakeholders, to assess if all key stakeholders have been identified and the extent that 
stakeholders are linked to each other. 
•	 Implement a more systematic and robust process for compiling and reporting data on project 
outputs and outcomes that is structured around the revised Wildlife TRAPS Monitoring Framework 
(Annex A). The data compilation workbook developed for this assessment could be used as a tool 
for continued capture of project outputs and outcomes though it requires redundant data entry on 
multiple worksheets. Ideally, a basic relational database should be developed (e.g., with Microsoft 
Access) through which a single form with fields for all desired data could be completed for each activity 
undertaken by the project. At this stage in Wildlife TRAPS implementation, however, it is unlikely that 
such a database can be created. For reporting of project outputs and outcomes, quarterly and annual 
reports should be structured to align with the revised monitoring framework as discussed above.
•	 Undertake proactive efforts to identify catalytic effects and to capture the broader influence of 
Wildlife TRAPS. 
o Consider conducting online surveys of participants in the four CAP workshops (or some subset 
thereof) to determine: (1) if and how the priority actions identified are informing their work to 
reduce wildlife trafficking; (2) what, if any, identified priority actions they have implemented; (3) 
what new partnerships resulted from their participation in a CAP workshop; and (4) what new 
or revised priority actions are warranted. 
o Develop and maintain a simple outcome log in which project personnel record any information 
gleaned from conversations, presentations heard, documents, etc., that indicate a stakeholder 
is using project-developed resources, implementing priority actions, building on relationships 
initiated through project activities, and/or achieving intended project outcomes. This information 
is valuable in itself, even if largely anecdotal, but also identifies stakeholders with whom project 
personnel could have a follow-up conversation to explore the full scope and nature of the 
project’s influence and catalytic effect.
Refine the project monitoring framework based on findings of this assessment and 
continue to refine as the project evolves.
Based on the use of the revised monitoring framework in this assessment and the assessment findings, the 
following revisions to the project monitoring framework are recommended:
• Key Result 1 – Add indicators for assessment dissemination metrics; remove the current indicator 
that simply confirms if a communications plan is in place.
• Key Result 4 – Remove Pathway B as an indicator of the catalytic effect of Wildlife TRAPS.
• Key Result 5 – Key stakeholders have been identified among stakeholders already engaged with the 
project and so having an outcome that key stakeholders will be engaged in each thematic area is not 
meaningful. Remove that phrase from the outcome statement. If additional key stakeholders that have 
not yet been engaged are identified through some sort of network analysis, the outcome statement 
would be meaningful and useful. 
• Key Result 8 – Refine thematic-area specific outcomes to reflect new work areas and key informants’ 
perspectives on desired outcomes. The current cross-thematic outcome is redundant with that for 
Key Result 4. Consider an outcome focused on the percentage of priority actions completed in each 
thematic area or the number or diversity of stakeholders involved in implementation. Alternatively, 
focus on implementing activities for actions that stakeholders have not worked on to date.
60 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 61
ANNEX A: DETAILED WILDLIFE TRAPS REVISED MONITORING FRAMEWORK
The outcome statement(s) for each key result in the Wildlife TRAPS results chain (See Figure 2 on page 12), indicator(s) for each outcome statement, and disaggregates for each indicator are provided in the table below. Outcome statements and 
indicators that were identified as tentative during development of the monitoring framework are so noted in blue font. Indicators and disaggregates for which data was not available for this assessment but should be collected as possible going forward 
are noted in red font. For this assessment, unless explicitly defined for a given outcome statement, evidence is considered to be any indication of progress towards the desired outcome.
Key Result Outcome Statement(s) Indicator(s) Disaggregate(s)
1. Needs for CWT 
action identified and 
disseminated
(1) Throughout the project, Wildlife TRAPS is responsive* to the needs of the global 
community for information to direct action in combating wildlife trafficking. 
*Responsive is defined as: collects and analyzes needed data and makes information available through 
multiple channels.
(1a) Evidence of Wildlife TRAPS responsiveness = # assessments completed that identify needed CWT actions
(1b) Communications plan for assessments in place [Y/N]
(1c) Communications plan being implemented as planned [Y/N]
2. Stakeholders engaged 
with and influenced by 
Wildlife TRAPS
(2) Wildlife TRAPS convenes and participates in the global dialogue on wildlife trafficking 
such that there is evidence* that Wildlife TRAPS is increasingly influencing the activities 
of stakeholders in combating wildlife trafficking.
*Evidence of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing influence is an increasing proportion of Wildlife TRAPS￾advised activities amongst all stakeholder-engagement activities in which Wildlife TRAPS is involved.
(2a) # Wildlife TRAPS-convened* activities
(2b) # Wildlife TRAPS-co-convened** activities
(2c) # Wildlife TRAPS-advised*** activities
(2d) # Wildlife TRAPS-participated**** activities
For each activity:
(2e) # participants
(2f) # stakeholder organizations
*Wildlife TRAPS-convened activity is an activity for which Wildlife TRAPS had primary control in agenda 
development, selection of participants, and also was the primary funder of needed direct monetary support. 
**Wildlife TRAPS-co-convened activity is an activity for which Wildlife TRAPS had shared control in agenda 
development, selection of participants, and also was a primary funder of direct monetary support. 
***Wildlife TRAPS-advised activity is an activity for which Wildlife TRAPS provided technical leadership, 
contributed to but did not lead agenda development, and did not contribute direct monetary support (i.e., no 
funding beyond staff time and travel expenses).
 ****Wildlife TRAPS-participated activity is an activity in which Wildlife TRAPS was involved solely as a 
participant. Wildlife TRAPS was not in role of providing technical leadership; made minor, if any, contributions 
to agenda development; and did not contribute direct monetary support (i.e., no funding beyond staff time 
and travel expenses).
(2a-d) Type of activity (see Box 3 on page 
24)
(2a-d) Thematic area 
(2a-d) FY
(2a-d) Work plan activity [Y/N]
(2a-d) Type of Wildlife TRAPS support 
(staff time, staff travel, direct 
monetary support)
(2e) Sex of activity participants
(2f) Stakeholder organizations engaged
3. Needed CWT actions 
are prioritized by 
stakeholders 
(3.1) By the end of the project, Wildlife TRAPS has convened a CAP workshop in at least 
four thematic areas that result in published recommendations of priority actions to 
combat wildlife trafficking.
(3.2) Throughout the project, new work areas for priority CWT action are initiated 
with stakeholders outside of a CAP process in response to emerging issues and 
opportunities.
(3.1a) # thematic areas in which a CAP workshop was convened that resulted in published 
recommendations of priority actions to combat wildlife trafficking
(3.2a) # new workstreams for priority CWT action initiated
All indicators:
•	 Thematic area
•	 FY of CAP workshop or initiation of 
new work area
4. Priority CWT actions are 
implemented 
(4.1) Throughout Wildlife TRAPS, priority CWT actions* are being implemented (A) through 
Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans, (B) as a result of action prioritization, and funded** 
through Wildlife TRAPS but not included in Wildlife TRAPS work plans, and (C) as a 
result of action prioritization, but not funded through Wildlife TRAPS.
*Priority CWT actions are those collaboratively defined by stakeholders in a given thematic area 
through a CAP workshop or other process.
**Wildlife TRAPS funding includes Wildlife TRAPS staff time and travel as well as direct monetary 
support.
(4.2) By the end of the project, there is evidence*** of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing catalytic 
effect on implementation of priority CWT actions* by others.
***Evidence of Wildlife TRAPS’ increasing catalytic effect is an increasing proportion of all 
implemented priority CWT actions that are implemented as a result of TRAPS action prioritization 
(Pathways B and C above) rather than through the workplan (Pathway A above). 
TENTATIVE – not all actions implemented through Pathway B may be evidence of 
catalytic effect.
(4.1a, 4.2a) # actions implemented through Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans
(4.1b, 4.2b) # actions implemented as a result of action prioritization and funded through Wildlife TRAPS, 
but not included in Wildlife TRAPS work plan
(4.1c, 4.2c) # actions implemented as a result of action prioritization but not funded through Wildlife 
TRAPS
All indicators:
•	 Thematic area
•	 Priority CWT action implemented
•	 FY
•	 Type of Wildlife TRAPS influence (See 
Box 2 on page 23)
•	 Type of Wildlife TRAPS support (staff 
time, staff travel, direct monetary 
support, no support)
•	 Implementing organization(s)
62 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 63
Key Result Outcome Statement(s) Indicator(s) Disaggregate(s)
5. Key stakeholders in each 
Wildlife TRAPS thematic 
area are engaged in CWT 
activities with Wildlife 
TRAPS and influencing 
others in their respective 
networks
(5) By the end of the project, key* stakeholders in each thematic area are engaged in 
CWT activities with Wildlife TRAPS and there is evidence** that they are increasing 
the number and connectivity of others in their respective networks that are engaging in 
CWT. 
*Key stakeholders are individuals and entities with high influence in their respective sector (e.g., 
industry associations, regulatory bodies, champions in thematic area, strategic partners).
**Evidence will be metrics of # network linkages and connectivity. 
TENTATIVE – explicit metrics will be defined after network mapping and analysis 
protocols are established.
For each thematic area:
(5a) # key stakeholders engaged in each thematic area
(5b) # stakeholder organizations in each thematic-area network
(5c) # of linkages amongst organizations in each thematic-area network 
(5d)strength of linkages amongst organizations in each thematic-area network 
TENTATIVE – indicators will be finalized after network mapping and analysis protocols are established.
All indicators:
•	 Thematic area
•	 FY of network mapping and analysis
6. Stakeholders enabled to 
implement needed CWT 
actions
By the end of the project, in each thematic area (as appropriate):
(6.1) thematic area-specific trainings have been offered and key stakeholders have 
participated;
(6.2) thematic area-specific materials* for improved practice are available, and being used by 
key stakeholders; 
(6.3) thematic area-specific professional development opportunities** are available, and 
being used by key stakeholders; and
(6.4) mechanism(s)*** in place for stakeholders in the thematic area network to 
communicate and collaborate and being used by key stakeholders.
*Materials include guides, toolkits, typologies, modules, webinars, standard operational procedures.
**Professional development opportunities include mentoring, peer assists, expert roundtables,
conference attendance, piloting new technologies, learning exchanges.
***Mechanisms include virtual communities of practice, task forces, information-exchange 
platforms, etc.
For each thematic area:
(6.1a) # thematic area-specific trainings offered
(6.1b) # key stakeholder organizations participating in a given training
(6.2a) # thematic area-specific resources made available to stakeholders
(6.2b) # key stakeholder organizations using* (or taking advantage of) the available resources
*Evidence of use could be downloads of an electronic document, hits to a website, participation in a webinar, etc.
(6.3a) # thematic area-specific professional development opportunities made available to stakeholders
(6.3b) # key stakeholder organizations participating in a professional development activity
(6.4a) # thematic-area specific mechanisms in place to enable stakeholders to communicate and 
collaborate
(6.4b) # key stakeholder organizations engaged in a networking mechanism
All indicators: FY
(6.2a, 6.3a, 6.4a) Type of materials, 
professional development 
opportunities, and networking 
mechanism provided
(6.1b, 6.2b, 6.3b, 6.4b) Key stakeholders 
using or participating in each 
resource
7. Stakeholder networks 
in each Wildlife TRAPS 
thematic area are 
sustainable and continue 
to take action to reduce 
wildlife trafficking
(7) By the end of the project, member(s) of stakeholder networks in each thematic area are 
planning or implementing CWT actions that continue or expand upon Wildlife TRAPS 
work plan activities and are doing so without funding* from Wildlife TRAPS.
*Wildlife TRAPS funding includes Wildlife TRAPS staff time and travel as well as direct monetary 
support.
For each thematic area:
(7a) # stakeholder organizations in each thematic area that are planning or implementing (without Wildlife 
TRAPS funding) CWT actions that continue or expand upon Wildlife TRAPS work plan activities 
•	 Thematic area
•	 FY of stakeholder planning or 
implementation
•	 Stakeholder organizations planning 
or implementing CWT actions that 
continue or expand upon Wildlife 
TRAPS work plan activities 
8. Desired outcomes from 
CWT actions achieved
TENTATIVE – All outcome statements, indicators, and disaggregates for desired outcomes for each thematic area and cross-thematically are considered tentative pending assessment findings and key informant input. 
Cross-thematic area:
By the end of the project, in each thematic area:
(XC8.1) all prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented through Wildlife TRAPS 
annual work plans are completed**;
(XC8.2) all prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented with Wildlife TRAPS funding 
but were not included in Wildlife TRAPS annual work plans are completed** or show 
evidence of being near completion**; and
(XC8.3) some prioritized* CWT actions that have been implemented without Wildlife TRAPS 
funding are near completion**.
*Prioritized CWT actions are those collaboratively defined by stakeholders in a given thematic area 
through a CAP workshop or other process.
**A prioritized action is considered complete when the output (e.g., protocol defined, decision made, 
etc.) identified in the stated action is finalized. When a prioritized action is to undertake an ongoing 
process or activity, it will be considered complete when the process or activity is initiated and there is 
evidence that it will be sustained.
(XC8.1a) # prioritized actions completed that have been implemented through Wildlife TRAPS annual 
work plans
(XC8.2a) # prioritized actions completed or nearing completion that have been implemented with 
Wildlife TRAPS funding but were not included in TRAPS annual work plans
(XC8.3a) # prioritized actions completed or nearing completion that have been implemented without 
TRAPS funding
All indicators:
•	 Thematic area
•	 FY action completed
•	 Type of Wildlife TRAPS influence (see 
Box 2 on page 23)
•	 Type of Wildlife TRAPS support (staff 
time, staff travel, direct monetary 
support, no support)
•	 Implementing organization(s)
Financial Sector:
By the end of the project,
(FIN8.1) international financial institutions improve systems to enable better reporting and 
investigation of wildlife crime offenders between financial institutions and investigative 
and asset recovery units; and
(FIN8.2) countries’ abilities to seize and recover assets from middlemen and kingpins are 
improved.
(FIN8.1a) Evidence* that systems are improved in accordance with global guidelines 
*Evidence will be action(s) taken by the Illegal Wildlife Trade Financial Institution Task Force 
(FIN8.2a) Seizure and recovery of assets
(FIN8.1a) FY of action(s) taken by 
the Illegal Wildlife Trade Financial 
Institution Task Force
(FIN8.1a) Type of systems improved
(FIN8.2a) FY of asset seizure or recovery
(FIN8.2a) Countries seizing or 
recovering assets
64 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 65
Key Result Outcome Statement(s) Indicator(s) Disaggregate(s)
NOTE: Transportation sector 
outcomes and indicators 
derived from the ROUTES 
MEL plan.
Transportation Sector:
By the end of the project, 
(TR8.1) wildlife trafficking will be incorporated into select industry standards, practices, and 
protocols;
(TR8.2) awareness of wildlife transport laws, policies, and industry guidelines will be 
increased in targeted transport sector audiences; 
(TR8.3) targeted transport sector companies and ports have amended their training 
programs to address gaps in staff knowledge in detecting and reporting of wildlife 
trafficking incidents; and
(TR8.4) targeted transport sector companies have the internal mechanisms, protocols, and 
systems in place needed for personnel to report wildlife trafficking incidents.
(TR8.1a) Evidence that wildlife trafficking is being incorporated into select industry standards, practices, 
protocols
(TR8.1b) Evidence that systems are being developed for transport sector players to report incidents of 
wildlife trafficking
(TR8.2a) Evidence that awareness of wildlife transport law, policies, and industry guidelines is increased in 
targeted transport sector audiences 
(TR8.3a) Evidence that targeted transport sector companies and ports are amending their training 
programs to address gaps in staff knowledge in detecting and reporting of wildlife trafficking
(TR8.4a) Evidence that targeted transport sector companies and ports are putting in place the internal 
mechanisms, protocols, and systems needed for personnel to report wildlife trafficking incidents
All indicators:
•	 FY of evidence provided
•	 Transport sector actors involved 
Demand Reduction:
By the end of the project, 
(DR8.1) messaging for target audiences identified for future focus is improved; and
(DR8.2) there is evidence of reduced demand for illegal products.
(DR8.1a) # targeted audiences for which improved messages has been developed 
(DR8.2a) Evidence of reduced demand for illegal wildlife products
Indicator DR8.1a:
•	 FY message developed
•	 Type of audience
•	 Country/geography of audience
•	 Species or type of illegal wildlife 
product focused on 
Indicator DR8.2a:
•	 FY of evidence
•	 Type of market or consumer
•	 Species or type of illegal wildlife 
product 
Law Enforcement:
By the end of the project,
(LE8.1) NIAP countries in Central Africa will have improved compliance and transparency 
with the CITES process;
(LE8.2) cross-border and trans-continental coordination in wildlife crime investigations 
among NIAP countries in Central Africa will be improved;
(LE8.3) in enforcement agencies in NIAP countries in Central Africa, critical capacity gaps 
in (a) data and information sharing, (b) specialized enforcement techniques, and (c) 
stockpile management, will be filled;
(LE8.4) multi-agency units will be in place at X ports to strengthen port transparency, 
screening, and security; and
(LE8.5) in at least one jurisdiction where judiciary training was provided as a result of 
Wildlife TRAPS action prioritization, there is evidence of increased effectiveness in the 
prosecution of wildlife crime cases.
(LE8.1a) Evidence that NIAP countries in Central Africa have improved compliance and transparency with 
the CITES process
(LE8.2a) Evidence that cross-border and trans-continental coordination in wildlife crime investigations 
among NIAP countries in Central Africa is improved 
(LE8.3a) Evidence that critical capacity gaps in data and information sharing are filled in enforcement 
agencies in NIAP countries in Central Africa
(LE8.3b) Evidence that critical capacity gaps in specialized enforcement techniques are filled in 
enforcement agencies in NIAP countries in Central Africa
(LE8.3c) Evidence that critical capacity gaps in stockpile management are filled in enforcement agencies in 
NIAP countries in Central Africa
(LE8.4a) # ports where active multi-agency units are in place
(LE8.5a) Evidence that wildlife crime cases are being prosecuted more effectively
All indicators:
•	 FY of data
•	 NIAP countries involved
(LE8.3a-c) Enforcement agencies with 
enhanced capacity
(LE8.4a) Port
Wildlife Forensics:
By the end of the project, 
(FOR8.1) a robust and scientifically compliant reference sample database for species in 
trade is developed; and
(FOR8.2) uptake and utilization of forensic science in law enforcement efforts is improved.
(FOR8.1a) A robust and scientifically compliant reference sample database for species in trade is 
developed [Y/N] 
(FOR8.2a) # countries with active crime scene investigation units
(FOR8.2b) # countries with active forensic labs
(FOR8.2c) # cases involving large-scale seizures of illegal wildlife products that employed forensic analyses
For FOR8.1a:
•	 Species in database
•	 FY species added to database
(FOR8.2a-c) Countries
(FOR8.2a-b) FY with active investigation 
units or forensic labs in operation
(FOR8.2c) Species or illegal wildlife 
product seized
Community Engagement:
(CE8.1) Throughout the project, there is an increasing number of projects developed using 
the Beyond Enforcement methodology.
(CE8.1a) # projects designed explicitly around and referencing the Beyond Enforcement Theory of 
Change
•	 Implementing organization
•	 Funding organization
•	 Project status 
66 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 67
ANNEX B: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW AND SURVEY 
QUESTIONS
Three sets of questions are provided below as subsections of this Annex:
Annex B.1 Interview Questions for Key Informants from External Stakeholder Organizations (not USAID or 
TRAFFIC)
Annex B.2 Interview Questions for USAID and TRAFFIC Key Informants
Annex B.3 Survey Questions for Key Informants from USAID Missions that Contributed Funding to Wildlife 
TRAPS
Annex B.1 Interview Questions for Key Informants from External Stakeholder 
Organizations (not USAID or TRAFFIC)
Questions 1-6 – for all interviewees
1. Please describe your current position and how your work relates to or intersects TRAFFIC’s work, or 
to efforts to combat wildlife trafficking generally? 
2. Are you aware of any assessments or reports that TRAFFIC has produced on any aspect of the status 
and trends in trans-continental illegal wildlife trade between Africa and Asia? If so, how did you become 
aware of the assessment(s)?
3. Have the findings of any assessment informed or influenced your work or the work of your 
organization? How? If not, why?
4. In your various meetings related to combating wildlife trafficking, how often do you come across 
TRAFFIC personnel? What were their roles in those meetings (i.e., convener, presenter, co-participant, 
etc.)? Did your interaction with TRAFFIC personnel lead to any follow-up actions or activities? To what 
extent, do you consider TRAFFIC personnel as thought leaders?
5. TRAFFIC, through the Wildlife TRAPS Project, has identified six thematic areas for its work: Financial 
Sector, Transportation Sector, Demand Reduction, Law Enforcement, Wildlife Forensics, Community 
Engagement. You have been identified as working in [thematic area]. Would you consider yourself or 
your organization a stakeholder in this or any of these areas? 
6. [Ask following for each thematic area with which the interviewee is associated] 
Through your interaction with TRAFFIC, have you engaged or are you seeking to engage with others 
in the network? Has working with TRAFFIC helped you to find others who want to achieve your 
objectives, or to consider new or revised objectives? Do you have any thoughts on how that network 
could be strengthened? 
Questions 7-10, Set A – for interviewees in thematic areas for which there was a CAP 
workshop
7. TRAFFIC convened a Collaborative Action Planning workshop in which stakeholders in [identify thematic 
area relevant to interviewee] identified and prioritized actions to combat wildlife trafficking - [provide name 
of workshop]
a. If interviewee or their organization participated in a workshop, confirm: We understand you or 
another person in your organization participated in that workshop. Is that correct?
b. If interviewee or their organization did not participate in a workshop, ask: Are you aware of the 
recommendations that emerged from this workshop? If so, how did you become aware of its 
recommendations? 
8. If interviewee is aware of the priority actions, ask: Have they informed or influenced your work or the work 
of your organization? Have they specifically catalyzed actions or activities you have undertaken? If so, 
with whom are you working and how is that work funded? What is the current status of that work?
9. Through the efforts of TRAFFIC working with partners, an array of trainings, products (e.g., documents, 
toolkits, better practice guidelines, webinars, websites), and professional development opportunities 
have been made available in different thematic areas. Are you aware of any of these resources relevant 
to the thematic area in which you work? If so, have you used/accessed them in any way? If so, have they 
been helpful to your work and in what way? What additional resources would be helpful to your work?
10. Thinking more about the prioritized actions to combat wildlife trafficking in your thematic area, 
what is your sense that they are catalyzing work across the network of stakeholders outside of your 
organization? What opportunities and challenges do you see to increasing efforts by more stakeholders 
to accomplish those priority actions?
Questions 7-10, Set B – for interviewees in thematic areas for which there was no CAP 
workshop or identified list of priority actions for reference in the assessment
7. In your view, how has TRAFFIC contributed to efforts to identify and prioritize actions to combat 
wildlife trafficking to be undertaken by stakeholders in your thematic area?
8. Have these efforts by TRAFFIC informed or influenced your work or the work of your organization? 
Have they specifically catalyzed actions or activities you have undertaken? If so, with whom are you 
working and how is that work funded? What is the current status of that work?
9. Through the efforts of TRAFFIC working with partners, an array of trainings, products (e.g., documents, 
toolkits, better practice guidelines, webinars, websites), and professional development opportunities 
have been made available in different thematic areas. Are you aware of any of these resources? If so, 
have you used/accessed them in any way? If so, have they been helpful to your work and in what way? 
What additional resources would be helpful to your work?
10. Thinking more about TRAFFIC’s efforts to prioritize actions to combat wildlife trafficking in your 
thematic area, what is your sense that they are catalyzing work across the network of stakeholders 
outside of your organization? What opportunities and challenges do you see to increasing efforts by 
more stakeholders to accomplish collaboratively defined priority actions?
Questions 11-12 – for all interviewees
11. In your thematic area, what is the most important outcome you hope to see achieved within the next 
3-5 years to reduce wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia? What is needed to make that happen?
12. Thank you! Do have any further thoughts you’d like to share?
Annex B.2 Interview Questions for USAID and TRAFFIC Key Informants 
1. Please describe your current role and responsibilities in the management and implementation of Wildlife 
TRAPS (e.g., advisor, oversight/high-level decision making, implementation responsibility, etc.).
Wildlife TRAPS is described as an effort is to “achieve a transformation in the ability and impact of priority 
international stakeholders to tackle wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia.” In your view,
2. What transformation in stakeholder impact is needed to meaningfully reduce wildlife trafficking between 
Africa and Asia? 
3. What transformation in stakeholder ability is needed to achieve the impact above? 
4. What does success look like for Wildlife TRAPS when it ends in 2020?
68 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 69
To achieve this transformation, the Wildlife TRAPS project has three objectives:
•	 To improve understanding of the status of and trends in trans-continental illegal wildlife trade, with a focus 
on trade routes for threatened species trafficked between Africa and Asia;
•	 To increase international collaborations around actions to reduce and control illegal wildlife trade between 
Africa and Asia; and 
•	 To identify, inform, and facilitate the efforts of national government and inter-governmental, NGOs and 
private sector collaborators affected by illegal wildlife trafficking between Africa and Asia, in implementing 
effective strategies to combat it. 
Considering each of these objectives in turn,
5. What is your assessment of the progress made to date relative to what you think is needed for project 
success?
6. What do you consider the most notable achievement(s) to date?
7. What factors or conditions have facilitated success in achieving the objective? Consider different types of 
partners, activities undertaken, implementation context, etc.
8. What factors or conditions have impeded progress in achieving the objective? Consider different types of 
partners, activities undertaken, implementation context, etc.
Through its efforts to accomplish its objectives, it is envisioned that Wildlife TRAPS will broadly influence the 
CWT work of stakeholders engaged and, specifically, to catalyze stakeholders to undertake priority CWT 
actions that have been defined collaboratively through Wildlife TRAPS.
9. What evidence do you see of the influence and/or catalytic effect of Wildlife TRAPS activities?
10. What factors or conditions have enhanced the extent to which Wildlife TRAPS activities have influenced 
and/or catalyzed the actions of others in combating wildlife trafficking? Consider different types of partners, 
activities undertaken, implementation context, etc.
11. What factors or conditions have limited the extent to which Wildlife TRAPS activities have influenced 
and/or catalyzed the actions of others in combating wildlife trafficking? Consider different types of partners, 
activities undertaken, implementation context, etc.
12. Beyond continuing to work on its current objectives, what other activities could Wildlife TRAPS 
undertake to expand its influence and catalytic effect?
13. Wildlife TRAPS is implemented by IUCN, a public international organization. In your view, how has this 
funding mechanism facilitated or impeded TRAPS progress?
14. What aspects of project implementation and administration facilitated or impeded the scope and rate of 
its progress? Consider staffing, reporting structure, etc.
15. How well conceived was the three-phase approach? Please elaborate.
16. What aspects of the Wildlife TRAPS project might you consider worth replicating in future USAID efforts?
Annex B.3 Survey Questions for Key Informants from USAID Missions that Contributed 
Funding to Wildlife TRAPS
1. What activity or assessment did your mission finance?
2. Are you satisfied with the quality and timeliness of the activity or assessment? Why or why not?
3. Were you invited to participate in the planning or implementation of the activity or assessment? Do you 
believe your participation was valued?
4. Did you have opportunity to provide feedback on proceedings or reports? Do you believe your 
feedback was valued?
5. What other Wildlife TRAPS activities or products has your mission used?
6. How have Wildlife TRAPS product(s) or activity(ies) influenced mission programming? Were there any 
new insights that changed approach or scope?
7. How have the product(s) or activity(ies) advanced broader CWT objectives? Have any stakeholders 
used the product(s) or activity(ies) to inform their work?
8. Are there other thoughts you would like to share?
70 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 71
ANNEX C: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS
Name Title Organization
Nick Ahlers Project Lead TRAFFIC/Wildlife TRAPS
Gayle Burgess Behavioral Change Coordinator TRAFFIC
Paul Butler Senior Vice President, Founder and 
President Emeritus RARE
Rosemary Cooney Chair IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods 
Specialist Group
James Compton Senior Director, Asia TRAFFIC
Linden Coppell Head of Sustainability Etihad Airways
Marco Foddi Project Manager WCO-INAMA
Tom Keatinge Director RUSI Centre for Financial Crime and 
Security Studies
Mikala Lauridsen Senior Counter Wildlife Trafficking/
Conservation Advisor USAID/Kenya and East Africa
Alastair McNeilage CARPE Senior Technical Advisor USAID/DRC/CARPE
Javier Montano Global Coordinator, CWC
Regional Coordinator, CCP UNODC
Rob Ogden Program Director TRACE Network
Doreen Robinson Regional Chief, Environment and 
Energy Team USAID/Southern Africa
Mary Rowen Wildlife TRAPS co-manager USAID E3/FAB
Frankie Thomas Sitam Forensic Scientist National Wildlife Forensic Laboratory in 
Malaysia
Andy Tobiason Wildlife TRAPS co-manager USAID E3/FAB
Liu Yuan Demand Reduction Programme 
and Communications Officer CITES Secretariat
ANNEX D: COLLABORATIVELY DEFINED PRIORITY 
ACTIONS
The priority actions to combat wildlife trafficking that were collaboratively defined by participants of the four CAP 
workshops co-convened by Wildlife TRAPS are provided. The structure and text of the lists of priority actions are 
copied verbatim from the referenced source documents except use of American English spelling of words is used 
throughout for consistency across lists. Numbering of priority actions was added for assessment purposes.
Financial Sector
No CAP workshop.
Transportation Sector
Source document: 
TRAFFIC. 2015. “Key Actions for the Future” in Countering Illegal Wildlife Trade: Collaborative Actions along 
Transportation and Supply Chains Consultative Workshop. Workshop Report, pp. 14-16.
Tr-1. International Air Transport Association (IATA)
Tr-1.1. Encourage information sharing for Workshop outcomes, facts and figures on wildlife trafficking
Tr-1.2. Engage with Airports Council International (ACI) and other industry associations to raise wildlife 
trafficking as a priority issue
Tr-1.3. Promote training modules
Tr-1. Airlines
Tr-1.1. Outreach and awareness raising to passengers through e.g., inflight magazines and videos, Public 
Service Announcements (PSAs), inclusion of wildlife products among forbidden items, pre-flight 
check-in questionnaire, and targeted messages in e-tickets
Tr-1.2. Outreach to air associations, Airline Operators Committees (AOC) and airport authorities to raise 
awareness of wildlife trafficking issues
Tr-1.3. Help NGOs and other organizations to understand better ground operations and where most 
people are traveling to, hubs, percentage of passengers in various regions for development of more 
customized material and tools
Tr-1.4. Provide tailored training to employees, including subcontracted ground handling agents
Tr-1.5. Provide customs with advance information and pre-arrival manifest of passengers/cargo/courier for 
more targeted risk assessment
Tr-1.6. Understand and apply irregular “red flag” patterns (e.g., unusual routing or large irregular passenger 
luggage to trigger more thorough screening); info sharing with other agencies and partners
Tr-1.7. Take risk-based approach: know your clients
Tr-1.8. Adopt a common standard for airline screening procedures (e.g., check booking and declaration of 
cargo; government and agency checks such as customs, quarantine; use of X-Rays)
Tr-2. FIATA – IFCBA – Logistics & Customs Brokers
Tr-2.1. Promote awareness among member associations and within individual companies through, for 
example, information dissemination, and expert talks
Tr-2.2. Help NGOs and other organizations to understand better ground operations to develop more 
targeted material
Tr-2.3. Incorporate illegal wildlife trade into existing trainings for the industry associations and their 
individual members (modular – go to resources/content/delivery separately)
72 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 73
Tr-2.4. Provide tailored training to employees including warehouse workers (ground level)
Tr-2.5. Take risk-based approach: know your clients
Tr-2.6. Disseminate and apply irregular “red flag” patterns e.g., unusual routing and use of cash for large 
or expensive transport transaction, to trigger more thorough screening and info sharing with other 
relevant agencies and partners
Tr-2.7. Support WCO and other experts in the development of guidelines outlining, for example, 
problematic areas and “red flags” that might need attention to improve internal processes and legal 
sensitization
Tr-2.8. Include illegal wildlife as one of other illicit commodities in industry codes of conduct
Tr-3. NGOs
To airlines and other transport and logistics companies:
Tr-3.1. Work closely with airlines to develop better targeted messaging and customized material
Tr-3.2. Develop joint advertising campaigns in airports
Tr-3.3. Provide content for passenger awareness materials
Tr-3.4. Provide technical input and advice for internal employees’ awareness through existing channels 
including training material, websites, newsletters, staff rooms, and with code-share partners
To shipping companies, postal services and express couriers:
Tr-3.5. Learn more about their supply chain system to tailor training and information to the appropriate 
people or intervention points
To customs:
Tr-3.6. Contribute technical content (e.g. on commonly traded species, species identification tools, routes) 
to adapt existing training courses or develop new modules to include illegal wildlife trade
Tr-3.7. Deliver refresher courses
Tr-3.8. Share intelligence and promote collaboration between customs administrations
Other actions:
Tr-3.9. Assist companies with “where to go to” for information and tools
Tr-3.10. Fundraising – air passengers donation initiatives such as “Change for good”
Tr-3.11. Catalyze new partnerships and convene networking opportunities
Tr-5. Governments
TR-5.1. Promote simple and strong messaging to industry
TR-5.2. “Tusk free ports” campaign focusing at strengthening controls at the start of the supply chain
TR-5.3. Support development and implementation of national toolkits and enforcement
TR-5.4. Donor coordination and mobilize funding to support fight against wildlife crime
TR-5.5. Mainstream wildlife trade issues into transport/customs regulatory frameworks and best practices
TR-5.6. Use convening power to promote multilateral solutions and diplomatic engagement for more 
effective implementation of existing international agreements such as CITES
TR-5.7. Partnerships with private sector – such as USAID’s Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport 
of Endangered Species (ROUTES) new effort to partner with industry to improve identification and 
detection of illegal wildlife in transportation supply chains
TR-5.8. Government to government and inter-departmental approach
Tr-6. Customs Administrations and WCO
TR-6.1. Make customs areas at airports & ports available free of charge for display of signboards
TR-6.2. Work with airlines to develop in-flight passenger awareness on customs regulations
TR-6.3. Provide industry with simple indicators to cargo, freight, and handling companies for more tailored 
risk assessment
TR-6.4. Develop and deliver joint trainings utilizing complementary expertise across sectors including actors 
along supply chain (WCO, CITES, NGOs, industry)
TR-6.5. Prioritize geographic areas for capacity building
TR-6.6. Enforcement and information sharing with industry
TR-6.7. Creation of alert systems for controlled deliveries
Demand Reduction
Source document: 
TRAFFIC. 2016. “Next steps” in Changing Behaviour to Reduce Demand for Illegal Wildlife Products. Workshop 
Proceedings, pp. 24-25.
DR-1. Research
DR-1.1. Develop a suite of harmonized or standardized approaches to research to inform conservation 
related or demand reduction-related initiatives.
DR-1.2. Do research on less iconic species (pangolin and totoaba noted)
DR-2. Infusing behavioral change approaches and sharing other types of expertise
DR-2.1. Share expertise on behavior change, market dynamics, consumer insight
DR-2.2. Set up further discussions to deepen the CoP’s understanding around specific issues related to 
behavior change and buyer profiling.
DR-2.3. Convene expert roundtables to fill specific knowledge gaps and foster good practice in social and 
behavioral change communications and approaches
DR-2.4. Make contacts through the Wildlife Consumer Behavior Change Toolkit
DR-3. Sharing information and developing skills
DR-3.1. Share information and lessons learned from the workshop with delegates’ own organizations and 
broader professional connections
DR-3.2. Contribute technical input and knowledge resources to extend the functionality of the Wildlife 
Consumer Behavior Change Toolkit
DR-3.3. Build embedded Virtual Networking/Twinning and Mentoring hub in the Toolkit
DR-3.4. Build video platform featuring short interviews with experts in the Toolkit
DR-3.5. Build a discussion and debate section in the Toolkit
DR-3.6. Develop a graphic guide cartoon for the Toolkit
DR-3.7. Convene series of topic-specific webinar sessions
DR-4. Catalyzing collaborations and innovative partnerships
DR-4.1. NGOs and advertising companies work more with each other and government agencies, as well as 
to reach out to personal contacts to tap into additional expertise
DR-4.2. Pursue public-private partnerships (e.g., liquor manufacturer proposed to explore the potential to 
develop alternative gifting options)
74 USAID Wildlife TRAPS Assessment 75
DR-4.3. Organize side events at high-profile conferences coming up later in 2016 such CITES CoP, the IUCN 
World Conservation Congress, and the Vietnam conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade (the third in 
the London Conference series).
DR-5. Funding opportunities
DR-5.1. Donor agencies provide well-targeted funding to support elements highlighted in the action plans.
DR-6. Policy
DR-6.1. CITES Management Authority to push forward dissemination and better integration of demand 
reduction strategies across government’s work
DR-6.2. Provide feedback on CITES documents (e.g., draft Resolution on Demand Reduction strategies to 
combat illegal trade in CITES-listed species)
DR-6.3. Provide input into other background papers prepared for international conferences and relevant fora
DR-7. TRAFFIC to continue convening and supporting the ‘Community of Practice’:
DR-7.1. Convene Expert Roundtables on key issues and discussion groups
DR-7.2. Provide Masterclasses on social and behavioral change methodologies
DR-7.3. Develop best practice ‘typologies’ in monitoring and evaluation
DR-7.4. Host and facilitate community engagement in the Wildlife Consumer Behavioural Change Toolkit
Law Enforcement - NIAPS
Source document: 
Nkoke, S.C, C.P. Ngeh, and N. Ahlers. 2016. “Recommendations and Essential Next Steps” in Workshop 
Proceedings: Sub-Regional Action Planning to Strengthen Regional Collaboration. Support of the Implementation 
of National Ivory Action Plans (NIAPs) in Central Africa, pp. 10, 27.
LEN-1. Integrate and fully articulate NIAPs into national conservation strategies and activities covered within 
national budgets; work with partners to identify financial sources while continuing to carry out activities 
financed by partners as currently practiced
LEN-2. Countries advised to consider using the African Elephant Fund which was endorsed and adopted by 
CITES
LEN-3. Establish platforms for national and regional collaboration to permit discussions and actions across 
different State agencies beyond those responsible for nature and wildlife conservation, such as 
administration, finance, defense, and judiciary; nationally, these platforms or national coordination units 
are to be coordinated by wildlife authorities and NIAP focal points while regionally the coordination 
units would be hosted by COMIFAC or ECCAS depending on the activity
LEN-4. Build capacity on intelligence gathering techniques. This action was highly recommended due to the lack 
of progress with investigations
LEN-5. Establish functional and effective interstate operational anti-poaching and anti-trafficking brigades capable 
of carrying out activities in the different countries with the support of COMIFAC and ECCAS
LEN-6. Sensitize the general public and also specific groups through the creation of protocols of accord with 
transporters (syndicates, airline, maritime companies, etc.) that could also permit the seizure of wildlife 
products especially ivory and the equipment used in the contraband activities
Wildlife Forensics
Source document (included bolded text as presented below): 
McEwing, R. and N. Ahlers. 2017. “Recommendations and Essential Next Steps” in RhODIS®(Rhino DNA index 
system). Collaborative Action Planning Workshop Proceedings, p. 10.
WF-1. The analysis from DNA profiling of rhinoceros horn needs to be better utilized as 
a law enforcement tool. Currently, the results from analyzing seized rhinoceros horn samples 
are not being disseminated effectively to inform trade data analysis or law enforcement investigations 
outside of South Africa. This highlights a lack of engagement, or developed network, to properly 
disseminate this information in the appropriate format for enforcement agencies or trade monitoring 
agencies to actively utilize such data. Efforts should be made to ensure that RhODIS data 
is actively disseminated, where and when appropriate, to relevant monitoring and enforcement 
organizations and reports made documenting trade patterns to the CITES Secretariat.
WF-2. An internationally standardized DNA species identification test for all rhinoceros 
species needs to be developed. The initial stage of identifying whether a suspected rhinoceros horn 
is actually from a rhinoceros, and if so, determining the rhinoceros species, so that the appropriate DNA 
profiling panel can be used to ascertain if the profile matches a carcass from the database. A mitochondrial 
cytochrome b gene test is the most useful and efforts should be made to develop a standardized system.
WF-3. The RhODIS DNA system for Black and White rhinoceros needs further validation. 
To ensure compliance with the legal systems in countries other than South Africa, additional validation 
requirements need to be addressed. Efforts should be made to rapidly publish the required 
validation data so the RhODIS system can be utilized as widely as possible.
WF-4. As a pilot study under a four year GEF-UNDP rhinoceros program (2012–2016), an Environmental 
Forensic Section at the South Africa Police was established to develop police capacity for wildlife DNA 
forensic testing. A decision as to whether this section will be maintained, and to what 
extent it will manage the DNA testing, logistics and dissemination of rhinoceros DNA testing, is key to 
ongoing international testing and dissemination.
WF-5. A DNA profiling system for the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros, also known as 
the Indian rhinoceros, needs to be developed. As poaching and illegal trade is common in 
this species, and with a differing sentencing response in relation to animals poached within and outside 
national parks, the development of a DNAbased individual identification technique could assist with 
enforcement operation in range countries of this species.
WF-6. A mechanism to expedite the international transfer of samples from CITES￾listed species for enforcement testing purposes needs to be developed. The inherent 
complexity of moving samples internationally for enforcement testing purposes presents challenges 
when DNA testing needs to be carried out rapidly. Efforts should be made to work with CITES to 
develop mechanisms where certain sample types can be fast tracked through the CITES process for the 
purposes of enhancing an illegal wildlife trade investigation.
WF-7. Other forensic techniques to aid enforcement of the illegal rhinoceros horn trade 
require evaluation. Although DNA can be a powerful technique in wildlife crime investigation 
the technique can also be narrow in scope. Additional forensic techniques that can provide more 
information in relation to the perpetrators of crime should be investigated to add additional tools for 
enforcement officers to address illegal rhinoceros horn trade.
Community Engagement
No CAP workshop. 
76 USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20523
Tel: (202) 712-0000
Fax: (202) 216-3524
www.usaid.gov/biodiversity