MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ASIA’S REGIONAL RESPONSE TO ENDANGERED SPECIES TRAFFICKING PROGRAM Evaluation Report October 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Social Impact, Inc. (SI) with partner Management Systems International (MSI). It was authored by George F. Taylor II, Joseph J. Dowhan, Julia F. Rizvi and Angel N. Manembu, with assistance from Nigoon Jitthai (USAID/RDMA) and Megan Hill (USAID/E3). Photo Caption: Travelers learn about wildlife trafficking at a display case designed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in the Kunming Changshui International Airport, Yunnan Province, China. The Freeland Foundation partners with IFAW to implement the Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) program. (Photo Credit: George F. Taylor II) MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ASIA’S REGIONAL RESPONSE TO ENDANGERED SPECIES TRAFFICKING (ARREST) PROGRAM October 20, 2013 Contract Number: RAN-I-00-09-00019-00 Order Number: AID-486-TO-13-00004 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. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This evaluation would not have been possible without the contributions made by so many during our planning, fieldwork, analysis and drafting. While the list of people the Evaluation Team wishes to thank is too extensive to detail here, the Team would like to especially acknowledge several individuals, groups and organizations whose contributions were instrumental to making this effort a success:  Danielle Tedesco and Supattira Rodboontham (Ke) of the RDMA/REO Office, who contributed in ways too numerous to mention.  REO Director Alfred Nakatsuma and RDMA Director Mike Yates for their proactive interest in this evaluation and their vision that extends beyond the immediate purpose of this evaluation to seek the preservation of regional biodiversity as well as the security and health of the human community.  The many members of the RDMA staff and the USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group who met with the Team.  Steve Galster and the Freeland Foundation team. Special thanks to Freeland Chairman Kraisak Choonhavan for taking time to share his insights and to Liu Ning, Mark Bowman, Brian Gonzales and Siwaporn Teerawichitchainan for fielding numerous follow-up questions.  Manop Lauprasert and Chrisgel Ryan Ang Cruz at the ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit in Bangkok for their briefings as well as their invaluable assistance in helping to set up field visits and conduct the survey. Field visits took us to China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Special thanks to:  Nigoon Jitthai and Supattira Rodboontham (Ke) for joining us on the visits to Vietnam and Indonesia and for their invaluable insights into the ARREST program.  ASEAN-WEN focal points for their assistance and insights.  Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) Philippines and Ministry of Forestry Indonesia for arranging a meeting with partners and sharing their thoughtful views.  USAID staff and Embassy ESTH Officers in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam for their frank and insightful remarks on the ARREST program.  IFAW/China staff for their assistance in organizing the China visit. The Evaluation Team would like to thank all those who took time from their busy schedules to meet with the Team, correspond with us, respond to our survey, talk with us by phone and Skype and provide feedback on our ideas and draft documents. You know who you are. Thank you! A very special thanks to Nigoon Jitthai and Megan Hill for sharing their insights into Behavior Change Communication (BCC), included as Annex V in the report. iv Also, thank you to home office Social Impact (SI) and MSI staff Chiara Cruciano, Dennis Wood, Julie Mandolini-Trummel and Domoina Rambeloarison for your support and contributions to the evaluation. Finally, the Team wishes to acknowledge and salute all the brave men and women, as well as others behind the scene, who serve as rangers, border inspectors, forest guards, port inspectors, quarantine inspectors, marine patrol guards, national police and others at the front line, who daily work tirelessly and devotedly, with little pay, under the most dangerous of conditions, to fight the good fight in combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. You are the true heroes of this program. iv CONTENTS Contents ........................................................................................................................................ iv Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................1 Program Background ................................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Design, Methods and Limitations ..................................................................................................2 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................3 Findings .....................................................................................................................................................................3 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................4 Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................................5 I. Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions ........................................................................... 7 Evaluation Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................7 Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................................................................8 II. Program Background ............................................................................................................... 9 Development Challenge ..........................................................................................................................................9 USAID Response ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 ARREST Theory of Change ................................................................................................................................... 12 III. Evaluation Methods & Limitations ...................................................................................... 14 Evaluation Design .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Data Collection Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Document Review ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 15 Survey ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Document Review ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................................................................. 17 Survey ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Limitations and Risks .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Attribution and Generalizability .................................................................................................................... 18 Recall Bias .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Response Bias ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 v Selection Bias ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Direct Observation .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Availability and Participation .......................................................................................................................... 20 IV. Looking Back (2011–2013): Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ....................... 21 Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising .................................................................................................. 21 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 27 Law Enforcement Capacity Building ................................................................................................................. 29 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 34 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 37 Sustainability, Partnerships and Learning ...................................................................................................... 39 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Gender in Program Strategy, Design and Implementation ..................................................................... 46 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 50 Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 51 Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work ......................................................................................................... 52 Annex II: Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................................................. 66 Interview Instruments ........................................................................................................................................ 66 Survey Protocol .................................................................................................................................................... 85 Annex III: Sources of Information ...................................................................................................................... 92 Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................................................ 92 Informants Interviewed ..................................................................................................................................... 99 Annex IV: Evidence Matrix ..................................................................................................................................116 Annex V: Potential Contributions of Behavior Change Communication (BCC) to ARREST: Rationale and Proposed Next Steps ...............................................................................................................118 What Is Behavior Change Communication? ...........................................................................................118 Environmental Behavior Change at USAID: Examples and Resources ..........................................121 vi Recommendations for ARREST ....................................................................................................................123 Annex VI: Looking Forward (2013–2016) ......................................................................................................129 Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising ...........................................................................................129 Law Enforcement Capacity Building ..........................................................................................................129 Sustainability, Partnerships and Learning ................................................................................................136 Youth as a Crosscutting Theme: Engaging the Next Generation ...................................................141 Annex VII: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest .....................................................................................143 FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1: Global Middle Class in 2009 and projections for 2030 ............................................................... 10 Figure 2: Survey responses by country ................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 3: ASEAN Member State Support to PCU (source: ARREST Mid-term Evaluation Survey) 41 Figure 4 Illustrative Sample of Application of BCC Framework to Illegal Wildlife Trade/Trafficking Project ...................................................................................................................................................................124 Figure 5: ASEAN Community ................................................................................................................................. 137 Figure 6: AMAF Structure ........................................................................................................................................138 Figure 7: ASEAN Political-Security Community ..............................................................................................139 Tables Table 1: Data Collection Allocation and Flow .................................................................................................... 14 Table 2: Number of Key Informants By Country .............................................................................................. 16 Table 3: Male and Female Beneficiaries of ARREST Program Training/Workshops .......................... 48 Table 4: Selected USAID with BCC-Related Expertise ..................................................................................126 vii ACRONYMS ACB ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity AIPA ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly AMAF Ministers Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry AMMTC ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime ARREST Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations ASEAN-WEN ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network ASOF ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry BCA Biodiversity Conservation Agency BCC Behavior Change Communication CAWT Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking CCP Center for Communication Programs CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COR Contracting Officer Representative DAI Development Alternatives Incorporated DOJ U.S. Department of Justice DoS U.S. Department of State E&SD Economic & Security Dialogue E3 USAID/Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and the Environment ENV Education for Nature–Vietnam ESTH DoS/Environment, Science, Technology and Health GEF Global Environment Facility G-FISH Global Fish Alliance GPS Global Positioning System GTI Global Tiger Initiative HC3 Health Communication Capacity Collaborative IAP Indoor Air Pollution ICCWC International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime IEC Information, Education and Communication IFACS Indonesia Forest and Climate Support IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare ILEA International Law Enforcement Academy INL DoS/Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization IPST Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology viii IR Intermediate Results JWT J. Walter Thompson KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practices KII Key Informant Interview LE Law Enforcement LOC Letter of Cooperation MSI Management Systems International NGO Non-Governmental Organization NICE-CG National Inter-Agency CITES Enforcement Collaboration Group NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau PCU Program Coordination Unit PMP Performance Management Plan PROTECT Park Ranger Outreach and Tactical Enforcement Capacity Training PSA Public Service Announcement PSI Population Services International RDMA USAID/Regional Development Mission for Asia REO USAID/RDMA/Regional Environment Office RF Results Framework RTI Research Triangle International SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome SA-WEN South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network SCALE System-Wide Collaborative Action for Livelihoods and the Environment SFA State Forestry Administration SI Social Impact SIG Special Investigations Group SOMTC Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime SOW Statement of Work TCM Traditional Chinese Medicine TNC The Nature Conservancy ToT Training of Trainers TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership TRACE Tools and Resources for Applied Conservation and Enforcement TRAFFIC Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce TRAPS Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment and Priority Setting UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USFS U.S. Forest Service ix USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USG United States Government WASH Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene WCO World Customs Organization WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WEN Wildlife Enforcement Network (or National Task Force) WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of the mid-term evaluation of Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) Regional Environment Office (REO), was to reflect upon program implementation to date and look forward to opportunities for increased program success and sustainability. The evaluation was framed by three objectives: 1. Assess progress to date toward agreed-upon program objectives and intermediate results. 2. Identify implementation challenges, corrective actions, and/or areas for improvement related to program management and achievement of expected results for the duration of the program period. 3. Recommend specific opportunities to enhance regional level impact and further strengthen the regional Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and sustainability approach. The mid-term evaluation answers three evaluation questions, presented in the Statement of Work (SOW) in Annex I, about the value and success of ARREST’s overall regional program approach: 1. To what extent have demand reduction and awareness-raising activities been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? 2. To what extent has law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized and improved anti-poaching and anti-trafficking efforts within Association of South East Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) countries and regionally? 3. To what extent has the program met sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans regarding ASEAN-WEN and Program Coordination Unit (PCU) sustainable financing, regional and transregional partnerships, learning exchanges and strengthening regional centers of excellence? PROGRAM BACKGROUND Southeast Asia and adjacent countries, including China, have long been recognized by the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as a global “hotspot” for poaching, trafficking and consumption of illegal and protected wildlife parts and products that threaten a number of species both regionally and trans￾continentally with extinction. There has been a dramatic increase in the volume of illegal wildlife trade in recent years, driven by increased consumer demand fueled by rapid economic development and rising incomes. 2 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Trafficking in threatened and endangered species compromises the security of countries, hinders sustainable social and economic development, destroys natural wealth and poses risks to global health. The unregulated nature of the trade and conditions in wildlife markets facilitates the emergence and transmission of new diseases, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza, with major health and economic impacts. Trafficking is also a national security interest for the United States (U.S.) and other countries due to the involvement of heavily armed poachers in source countries, the sale of ivory and tropical hardwoods to finance non-state militias and the participation of organized criminal networks along the supply chain. The importance of the wildlife trafficking issue has been highlighted by two recent developments: the issuance of an Executive Order by President Barack Obama on July 1, 2013 directing the U.S. Government (USG) to develop a national strategy to combat trafficking and, later in July, the inclusion for the first time of the head of China’s State Forestry Administration in the annual U.S.–China Economic and Security Dialogue. RDMA has been a global leader in the USG’s efforts to address wildlife trafficking. Starting in 2005, it supported a pioneering effort by ASEAN member states to address wildlife trafficking through the establishment of a regional WEN. This program, implemented from 2005 to 2010, was followed by a new and more ambitious program: ARREST. The ARREST program promotes a three-pronged approach to curb wildlife trafficking through:  Reduction in consumption of endangered species in key markets in Asia by reducing consumer demand;  Reduction in poaching and trafficking of endangered species across Asia by strengthening law enforcement capacity; and  Continuation and sustainability of these positive trends beyond the life of the program by strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships. EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The Evaluation Team employed a mixed-methods evaluation design that combined qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection: document review, key informant interviews (KIIs) and a survey. The Evaluation Team conducted in-person KIIs in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, with a selection of individuals from each of four target groups: donor/USG partners, implementers, beneficiaries and external actors. The Evaluation Team was able to interview a total of 189 informants. Findings were supplemented and triangulated by an online survey, with both closed- and open-ended questions, which was distributed at the completion of fieldwork. The survey garnered responses from 61 contacts across nine ASEAN-WEN member states. The Evaluation Team faced four main types of limitations that may have reduced the richness of findings from data collection: ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 3  Attribution and Generalizability: The most significant limitation in the evaluation relates to attribution. The fact that multiple donors and implementers are actively working to combat wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia presents challenges for making judgments about attribution. This limitation was understood from the outset, and the evaluation questions were accordingly focused less on attribution and more on implementation, program approach and contribution. Given that much of the data collected was qualitative and collected from a convenience sample, the Evaluation Team is somewhat limited in its ability to generalize findings beyond direct respondents, although these respondents represent nearly all prioritized stakeholders and target groups.  Bias: The Evaluation Team encountered the potential of recall, response and selection biases during the evaluation. The most relevant of the three types was likely recall bias, in which program beneficiaries may have responded to questions posed by the Team with answers that blended their experiences into a composite memory. The involvement of USAID/RDMA and Freeland in ARREST’s predecessor ASEAN-WEN Support Program heightened the possibility of recall bias during this evaluation.  Direct Observation: The evaluation would likely have benefited from direct observation of an ARREST activity; however, no program events occurred during the Team’s time in the field. Additionally, the Team was not able to conduct site visits to airports and ports for direct observation of the operations at facilities and to note significant differences between countries.  Availability: The availability of some key informants was limited because of assignment transfers and annual leave. Other limitations on the availability of key informants included holidays such as Ramadan in Indonesia and a Buddhist holiday in Thailand, as well as conferences and meetings of intended interviewees held out of the country during the fieldwork period. Despite this limitation, the Evaluation Team feels that it was able to meet with all critical informants—even if by phone. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings The ARREST program is off to a strong start. Important progress has been made by the Freeland Foundation and its partners on many elements of the program during its first two years, particularly in its law enforcement training and capacity-building activities. ARREST is exceptionally well positioned to help address rising USG interest in and concern about wildlife trafficking both regionally and globally, including its intersection with a broad range of other high-priority issues such as transnational drug and human trafficking crimes and emerging pandemic threats resulting from the illegal transport of live animals across borders without health inspections. ARREST is on track to meet many of the activity-level results as set out in the Performance Management Plan (PMP). Results to date at the Intermediate Results (IR) level of the Results Framework (RF)—the level from which the key evaluation questions have been drawn—are 4 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report varied: modest progress in reducing consumer demand, significant progress in strengthening law enforcement capacity and mixed progress in strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships. Conclusions  Demand Reduction: Reducing demand for illegal wildlife is a long-term endeavor that involves changing knowledge, attitudes and practices. Various conditions and external circumstances can enable or impede such changes. Given these factors, and the number of public-awareness activities conducted by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), it will not be possible to attribute measurable shifts in demand reduction to Freeland activities exclusively. While iTHINK received a positive response in Thailand, it is too early to determine the campaign’s overall contributions to public awareness in all targeted countries. ARREST’s impact on demand reduction might not be realized during the program period. During the remainder of the program period, Freeland could build a foundation for the achievement of long-term outcomes by refining its demand reduction strategy to focus on Behavior Change Communication (BCC). Concrete suggestions on available resources and next steps are presented in Annex V.  Law Enforcement Capacity Building: The Law Enforcement (LE) component is one of ARREST's strongest activities and the furthest along of the three components. While all elements of the LE component are still in their relatively early stages of implementation, they are close to where they should be at this mid-point in the ARREST program. Though some countries have yet to benefit from the institutionalization of the ARREST LE training process, others, such as the Philippines, have made substantially more progress, both with respect to the functioning of their WENs and movement toward independently conducting their own trainings. Other WENs appear to have lost forward momentum both in their internal and external coordination efforts. This is in part due to lack of support by the respective central government and in part due to the PCU’s inability to provide more substantial support and mentoring due to understaffing and budget limitations, which has also hampered the PCU’s own progress as an ASEAN-wide coordinating entity. Although Freeland’s involvement in supporting the WENs and in providing anti-poaching and anti-trafficking training has been unequal through the region, most recipients of ARREST/Freeland LE training give it high marks. A number of high-profile arrests and seizures suggest that moderate progress is being made in anti￾trafficking efforts as a result of the ARREST program.  Sustainability, Partnerships and Learning: ARREST has not yet met the overall sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans on ASEAN-WEN and PCU sustainable financing. On this and two other elements included in Evaluation Question 3 (learning exchanges and regional and transregional partnerships), important progress has been made. On the fourth element (the establishment of regional centers of excellence), plans need to be reviewed to determine what will be feasible during the remaining years of the program. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 5 Individual states cannot be expected to solve the problems of transnational wildlife crimes and threats to indigenous species without engaging the support of neighboring countries. ARREST is providing valuable and consistent training of law enforcement personnel and promoting citizen awareness—both of which encourage and facilitate needed cooperation among countries to stem the transnational flow of endangered species and illegal wildlife products from a regional perspective. RECOMMENDATIONS Extensive input from document review and KIIs in five countries (China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) identified a number of ways in which the ARREST program can be strengthened during its remaining three years. Key recommendations are presented below along with suggested lead responsible parties and entities to implement the recommendations.  Advocate for the review of the ASEAN-WEN and the PCU’s location in the overall ASEAN structure. This includes supporting the sovereign decision-making processes and protocols of ASEAN leadership in exploring options that will give the network the higher visibility and increased political and financial support it must have to become more fully effective and sustainable. The considered view of the Evaluation Team is that moving from the Economic Community under the Senior Officials on Forestry to the Political-Security Community under the Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime (SOMTC) and the Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC) to whom they report would be the preferred option. (RDMA, Freeland, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group, U.S. Mission to ASEAN with the ASEAN Secretariat)  Continue to refine the ARREST demand reduction strategy, building upon successful awareness-raising activities and focusing increasingly on behavior change communication. Freeland should integrate USAID’s global experience with BCC into its project design and approach to demand reduction in China and Vietnam, considering detailed recommendations outlined in Annex V. (Freeland, RDMA)  Increase the attention and resources devoted by ARREST to partnerships in ways that promote sustainability, learning and shared ownership, thereby building the strongest possible base for USG support of Asia’s efforts to reduce and eliminate wildlife trafficking for the remaining years of the program and beyond. Provide additional funding for this if needed and amend the RDMA/Freeland Cooperative Agreement to reflect this and other changes. (RDMA, Freeland, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group)  Invite the full-time U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Special Agent to be assigned in Bangkok to provide expert guidance on the law enforcement component of ARREST and to open discussions about increased government-to￾government technical support for wildlife law enforcement issues across the region. Explore mechanisms for shifting management responsibility for USG support for wildlife￾related law enforcement from USAID and the U.S. Department of State (DoS)/Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) to USFWS in light of the recent USG 6 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Executive Order on Combatting Wildlife Trafficking and the preparation of a whole-of￾government National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. (RDMA, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group)  Consult with a gender specialist to identify opportunities to approach demand reduction and law enforcement capacity building in a more holistic manner that addresses the different roles of men and women in both sustaining and combating wildlife trafficking as appropriate. (Freeland, Implementing Partners, USAID/RDMA Gender Advisor)  Focus ARREST implementation on the ASEAN region, on the ASEAN-China relationship, on increased work in Lao PDR and on initiating activities in Myanmar. Limit support to other regional groups (e.g., South-Asia WEN [SA-WEN]) to information sharing and lessons learned. (Freeland, RDMA, DoS)  Increase efforts to build shared local ownership and ensure that ARREST is in fact Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking, not just in aspiration. For example, implement recommendations outlined above to facilitate regional partnerships and increase political and financial support for the ASEAN-WEN network. Additional suggestions have been provided in Annex VI-Looking Forward (2013-2016). (Freeland, RDMA, U.S. Mission to ASEAN, DoS) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 7 I. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this mid-term evaluation was to reflect upon program implementation to date and look forward to opportunities for increased program success and sustainability. The evaluation was framed by the following three objectives:  Assess progress to date toward agreed program objectives and intermediate results;  Identify implementation challenges, corrective actions and/or areas for improvement related to program management and achievement of expected results for the duration of the program period; and  Recommend specific opportunities to enhance regional level impact and further strengthen the regional WEN and sustainability approach. Internal consultations conducted by the Evaluation Team with USAID/RDMA staff and relevant USG stakeholders in Washington, DC and Bangkok, Thailand emphasized that activities conducted through the ARREST program have recently achieved a heightened profile and increased visibility. DoS elevated the priority of addressing wildlife trafficking in late 2012.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) committed an inaugural full-time special agent to deploy to Bangkok with a portfolio dedicated to the illegal wildlife trade. In an early June meeting of ASEAN member states, participants reached consensus and endorsed using their national budgets to cover the core costs of the ASEAN-WEN PCU—a critical step for local ownership, cooperative support and sustainable funding of the ARREST-funded entity. This positive development followed a protracted period of obstruction by a minority of member states, and further diplomatic efforts are underway to help facilitate the bureaucratic ASEAN budget approval process. On July 1, the White House issued an Executive Order to enhance coordination of USG efforts to combat wildlife trafficking and assist foreign governments in building the capacity needed to combat wildlife trafficking and related organized crime.2 1 Remarks at the Partnership Meeting on Wildlife Trafficking, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington DC, November 8, 2012. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/11/200294.htm. 2 Executive Order—Combating Wildlife Trafficking, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, July 1, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/01/executive-order-combating-wildlife-trafficking. This report uses the term “wildlife trafficking” rather than “illegal” or “illicit” wildlife trafficking, in keeping with the nomenclature 8 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report USAID and others intend to use the results of this mid-term evaluation to improve performance and maximize development results during the second half of the ARREST program period through 2016. In meeting the evaluation objectives established by USAID/RDMA, the Evaluation Team focused especially on assessing the outcomes of the ARREST program’s demand reduction and awareness-raising activities. Team members also probed for innovative practices related to law enforcement capacity building. When conducting fieldwork and data analysis, the Team considered the many USG, NGO, national and multilateral actors in this space in order to offer recommendations about how to leverage potential opportunities to expand ARREST partnerships with other donors and implementers—some of them new to this arena—and expand successful program approaches to neighboring countries and other regions working to address wildlife crime. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The ARREST mid-term evaluation SOW presents three evaluation questions about the value and success of the program’s overall regional approach. The thematic phrase referenced in parentheses after each question is used by the Evaluation Team to categorize and reference related data, findings and conclusions. 1. To what extent have demand reduction and awareness-raising activities been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? (Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising) 2. To what extent has law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized and improved anti-poaching and anti-trafficking efforts within ASEAN-WEN countries and regionally? (Law Enforcement Capacity Building) 3. To what extent has the program met sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans regarding (Sustainability, Partnerships and Learning): a. ASEAN-WEN and PCU sustainable financing? b. Regional and transregional partnerships—e.g., between ASEAN-WEN and the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), CITES, World Customs Organization (WCO), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)— including private sector partnerships? c. Learning exchanges (e.g., training, special investigation groups (SIGs), information exchanges, secondments)? d. The strengthening of regional centers of excellence? currently used by the USG. The phrase “illegal wildlife trade” is used in cases where the focus is on trade. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 9 II. PROGRAM BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE Southeast Asia and adjacent countries, including China, have long been recognized by the Parties to CITES as a global “hotspot” for poaching, trafficking and consumption of illegal and protected wildlife parts and products that threaten a number of species both regionally and transcontinentally with extinction. There has been a dramatic increase in the volume of wildlife trafficking in recent years, driven by increased consumer demand fueled by rapid economic development and rising incomes in key consuming countries, many of them in Asia. Demand for consumer and luxury goods—including wildlife products—has been exploding across Asia. Figure 1 below depicts the projected growth of the global middle class between 2009 and 2030.3 Rising incomes and purchasing power in Asia is a key driver of wildlife trafficking. China, in particular, has been successful in rapidly drawing a large fraction of its population out of poverty and into the middle class. As incomes continue to rise for those at the lower end of the income scale and as hundreds of millions of people move from rural to urban areas, the demand for consumer goods—including wildlife products—is expected to increase. 3 Standard Chartered Global Research. The Super-Cycle Report, 2010. http://www.privatebank.standardchartered.com/en/resources/pdfs/pvb-reports/market-analysis/The%20Super￾cycle%20151110%20CB.pdf 10 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Figure 1: Global Middle Class in 2009 and projections for 2030 As Matthew Scully noted in a recent article in The Atlantic: “The government of Kenya reports that 90 percent of ivory smugglers caught there are Chinese citizens. One fellow was picked up recently with 439 pieces of ivory on him, and in a Nairobi courtroom fined less than a dollar for each… It is getting out by every route, at airports, in large containers at seaports on either coast of Africa, in small fishing vessels, or simply by mail, and most of the ivory is bound for China. The rest goes to Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and other Asian friends of the United States, in routine disregard of the ivory ban that the United States led a generation ago. Africa's finite supply is meeting Asia's furious demand at a rate of nearly a hundred kills every 24 hours.” 4 Trafficking in threatened and endangered species compromises the security of countries, hinders sustainable social and economic development, destroys natural wealth and poses risks to global health. The unregulated nature of the trade and conditions in wildlife markets facilitate the emergence and transmission of new diseases, such as SARS and avian influenza, with major health and economic impacts. Trafficking is also a national security interest for the U.S. and other countries due to the involvement of heavily armed poachers in source countries, the sale 4 Scully, Matthew. June 6, 2013. “Inside the Global Industry That’s Slaughtering Africa’s Elephants.” The Atlantic Monthly http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/inside-the-global-industry-thats-slaughtering￾africas-elephants/276582/ ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 11 of ivory and tropical hardwoods to finance non-state militias and the participation of organized criminal networks along the supply chain. The importance of the wildlife trafficking issue has been highlighted by two recent developments: the issuance of an Executive Order by President Obama on July 1, 2013 directing the USG to develop a national strategy to combat trafficking and, later in July, the inclusion for the first time of the head of China’s State Forestry Administration in the annual U.S.–China Economic and Security Dialogue. Corruption and a lack of political will are regularly cited as two of the major constraints to addressing wildlife trafficking. Although both issues directly impact the effectiveness of ARREST and other programs working on this issue, they are well outside the implementing partners’ “manageable interest.” USAID and others working on wildlife issues need to also engage on governance issues writ large, working to build governments’ institutional capacities while at the same time strengthening civil society to ensure robust citizen participation and increasing levels of government transparency. Efforts at law enforcement have used border “control” as a central element of the strategy to address illegal wildlife trade. ASEAN plans to implement an “open borders” policy starting in 2015. This will increase the challenge and is yet another reason why urgent, priority attention must be given to the demand reduction side of the wildlife trafficking equation. USAID RESPONSE In response to the detrimental effects of wildlife trafficking on biodiversity, economics, health and security, USAID/RDMA issued a five-year cooperative agreement to the Freeland Foundation to implement the ARREST program from 2011 to 2016. The ARREST program builds upon progress gained and lessons learned during its predecessor ASEAN-WEN Support Program, which was funded by USAID/RDMA from 2005 to 2010 and jointly implemented by WildAid, Freeland Foundation and Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce (TRAFFIC) through a cooperative agreement. The ASEAN-WEN Support Program worked to achieve three long-term objectives: 1. To encourage and facilitate ASEAN countries in establishing national anti-wildlife crime task forces composed of national law enforcement, customs and environmental agencies to serve as the ASEAN-WEN network’s building blocks; 2. To support national and regional networking, thereby improving cooperation and coordination in wildlife law enforcement; and 3. To enhance broad international networking to address the global nature of the issue. Through the program, USAID/RDMA and USG partners facilitated the establishment of ASEAN￾WEN, which consists of a secretariat, or program coordination unit (PCU), and interagency national task forces in each member state. The ASEAN-WEN Support Program enhanced the capacity of ASEAN member states’ wildlife law enforcement officials and judiciaries, as well as 12 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report increased political will and public support for the ASEAN-WEN network at national and regional levels. The subsequent ARREST program fights trafficking in illegal wildlife in Asia in three ways: reducing consumer demand; building law enforcement capacity; and strengthening regional cooperation and anti-trafficking networks. Ultimately, ARREST aims to:  Strengthen and sustain ASEAN-WEN;  Widen ASEAN-WEN’s links to China, South Asia and other parts of the world;  Strengthen regional centers of excellence in biodiversity conservation, marine enforcement, forest protection and wildlife crime forensics;  Replicate best practices for wildlife law enforcement and conservation throughout Asia; and  Work to reduce demand for wildlife in key consumption hotspots. ARREST is implemented across the ASEAN region by the Freeland Foundation and its partners. The Freeland Chief of Party serves as the primary liaison with USAID/RDMA and the other USG agencies involved in both supporting and overseeing the ARREST program. ARREST THEORY OF CHANGE5 The ARREST program aims to alter the landscape of risks and rewards associated with the illegal wildlife trade, introducing disincentives for both perpetrators and consumers of trafficked goods. Awareness-raising campaigns supported by the ARREST program are designed to reduce the demand for wildlife products; reduced consumer interest and sales transactions are projected to lower prices, or rewards, for traffickers, thus transforming the conditions that encourage trafficking in endangered species. Corruption and limited capacity of law enforcement has enabled poachers and traffickers to pursue criminal activity at low risk to themselves and their networks. Through law enforcement capacity-building activities, the ARREST program seeks to strengthen human and institutional capacity to adopt and implement model protocols and operations against wildlife violations. Finally, the ARREST program focuses on promoting the sustainability of anti-trafficking mechanisms and initiatives through continued technical and facilitation support for the ASEAN-WEN PCU, regional and transregional partnerships, learning exchanges and the strengthening of regional centers of excellence. Lack 5 No formal theory of change has been developed by Freeland or RDMA for the ARREST program. This is now a USAID requirement set forth in the USAID Draft Biodiversity Policy (June 2013). If the RDMA/Freeland Cooperative Agreement is revised as a result of this evaluation, the Evaluation Team recommends that a formal theory of change be developed and included in the Agreement. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 13 of coordination, shared initiatives, or widely implemented regulations enable trafficking—or channel it to states in the region with weak laws or enforcement. Consistent national-level policies and robust regional platforms are expected to catalyze attitudes and behaviors regarding trafficking in endangered species. In these ways, the ARREST program endeavors to improve local, national and regional responses to the environmental challenge presented by wildlife trafficking in Asia. 14 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report III. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS EVALUATION DESIGN Leading up to and throughout a six-week period in the field, the Evaluation Team employed a utilization-focused approach. Prior to arrival in Bangkok, team members conducted an extensive document review (see Annex III) and consulted with USG staff at USAID, USFWS and the U.S. Forest Service who are familiar with both ARREST and its predecessor ASEAN-WEN Support Program. Activities conducted prior to fieldwork helped the Evaluation Team to understand the context of the ARREST program and define target groups for data collection in the field. During internal consultations at the outset of the evaluation, team members worked closely with USAID/RDMA to identify the intended primary users and audiences of the evaluation report, clarify and/or supplement the evaluation questions as needed and design the data collection protocols and tools. In addition, the Team invited feedback and recommendations from USAID/RDMA personnel who planned to participate in portions of fieldwork. This consultative process enabled the mid-term evaluation to account for recent developments and new opportunities that emerged since the evaluation SOW was approved, as well as respond to gaps in knowledge or areas for further exploration as they arose. DATA COLLECTION METHODS In order to complete the data collection in the allocated time, the four-member core Team broke into two sub-teams (A and B; see Table 1), each conducting three weeks of data collection. The core team members were also joined by USAID staff during some stages of data collection. Table 1: Data Collection Allocation and Flow Sub-Team A Sub-Team B Thailand  Vietnam China  Thailand  Team Leader: George Taylor  Evaluation Specialist: Julia Rizvi  USAID/RDMA Program Development Office (PDO) M&E Specialist Nigoon Jitthai (Vietnam) Thailand  Indonesia the Philippines  Thailand  Deputy Team Leader: Joseph Dowhan  Local Specialist: Angel Manembu  USAID/RDMA Regional Environment Office (REO) Evaluation Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Supattira Rodboontham (Indonesia) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 15 The full Team began and ended data collection in Thailand. Before data collection, the full Team spent two weeks in Bangkok for planning and internal consultations, and after data collection team members reconvened in Bangkok for one week of data analysis and an outbrief at USAID. The Evaluation Team employed a mixed-methods evaluation design that combined qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection: document review, KIIs and a survey. Ratings and scales were used in KII protocols and survey questions to ensure the collection of quantifiable data. Based on its initial document review and internal consultations with USAID/RDMA, the Evaluation Team identified four categories of target groups as data sources, for which interview protocols were developed and utilized in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam:  Donors/USG Partners: USAID/RDMA, USAID Missions, USG Agencies  Implementers: Freeland Foundation and Partners  Beneficiaries: ASEAN-WEN PCU, Law Enforcement Officials, ASEAN Governments  External Actors: INTERPOL, CITES, UNODC, NGOs, Media The Evaluation Team used parallel analysis to examine the evidence from the three types of data collection. In this “methods triangulation” analytical approach, the Team analyzed in parallel data obtained through different methods but related to the same evaluation question, and then analyzed evidence related to the same evaluation question across data collection methods. Document Review As a necessary first step both prior to its deployment and during its initial weeks in Thailand, the Evaluation Team conducted a document review to better understand the context of the ARREST program. This information-gathering included understanding ARREST’s predecessor ASEAN￾WEN Support Program; identifying critical assumptions underlying USAID/RDMA assistance for anti-trafficking in wildlife programs; clarifying the theory of change used by Freeland; identifying ARREST program beneficiaries; and gaining knowledge about the sustainability plan for the ASEAN-WEN PCU. Data collected during this stage were especially useful for constructing and refining data collection protocols used during fieldwork. Please refer to Annex III for a list of documents obtained from USAID/RDMA and other sources, including ARREST program background documents, PMP and quarterly reports; relevant assessments and evaluations; and other information from government agencies, program implementers and researchers. Confidential data—especially that contained in internal USG documents and which were used to help provide context and guide recommendations—are not cited in this evaluation report. Key Informant Interviews The Evaluation Team conducted in-person KIIs in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, with a selection of individuals from each of the four target groups identified above: donor/USG partners, implementers, beneficiaries and external actors. Table 2 presents a breakdown of the number of informants from each country. KIIs were conducted on an 16 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report individual basis or in groups to maximize efficiency, depending on circumstances, appropriateness and available resources. The Evaluation Team developed interview protocols for each type of key informant, with questions designed to address each of the three primary evaluation questions. Interview questions were tailored for appropriateness based on the interview subject’s level of involvement with, or proximity to, the ARREST program. Whenever feasible, two team members were present for each interview to ensure the accurate interpretation of data for quality control. Local logisticians and interpreters provided support as needed in each country. Table 2: Number of Key Informants By Country6 Country Number of Informants Males Females China 37 21 16 Indonesia 29 14 15 Philippines 28 19 9 Thailand 56 39 17 United States 15 5 10 Vietnam 22 10 12 Other 2 2 0 Total 189 110 79 Survey In consultation with USAID/RDMA, the Evaluation Team developed a survey that was delivered to specific target groups about Evaluation Questions 2 (Law Enforcement Capacity Building) and 3 (Sustainability, Partnerships and Learning). The survey questions were designed based on the ARREST program’s focus on sustainability in combination with heightened USG and regional attention toward next steps in combating illegal wildlife trade. Primary recipients of the survey 6 The Evaluation Team contacted several dozen other potential key informants who were either unavailable or failed to respond to requests for interviews. Lack of response to this level is typical for an evaluation of this scope and magnitude. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 17 were selected on the basis of their affiliation with ASEAN member states, national WENs, the ASEAN-WEN PCU and other national or regional stakeholders. Recipients were based in 10 ASEAN member states, including countries that were not visited during fieldwork: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The survey was relatively short in order to achieve an optimum response rate and was available only in English, the “working language” of ASEAN. The survey was launched directly after the completion of fieldwork using the web-based application SurveyMonkey. DATA ANALYSIS Document Review All documents that were reviewed were “mined” for both quantitative and qualitative data relevant to answering the evaluation questions. Findings from the document review were triangulated with findings from interviews with Freeland staff and other key informants to ensure validity. Key Informant Interviews For each interview conducted, the Evaluation Team entered responses provided by the key informant(s) into the appropriate interview protocol template, making sure to disaggregate data by sex and location as appropriate. The Team member then summarized key themes, issues and recommendations raised by the key informant(s), as well as any insights identified by the interviewer(s). In compliance with international evaluation ethics standards, the Team respects the privacy and confidentiality of key informants by not attributing findings to them by name in the evaluation report. Survey The survey included a balance of both closed-ended questions (e.g., multiple choice, yes/no, rating scales) that enabled the collection of quantifiable data and open-ended questions to ensure that the Team’s analysis incorporated underlying dynamics for why respondents answered closed-ended questions in a certain way. Survey data was downloaded into Excel and disaggregated by sex, country and respondent type (e.g., ASEAN member state, national WEN, ASEAN-WEN PCU, other). Both quantitative and qualitative survey data were analyzed and triangulated with data collected through interviews with the same target group. The survey was sent to a total of 165 valid contacts, from which 61 contacts provided answers to substantive questions (37 percent response rate). Figure 2 displays the number of responses from each country. Unfortunately, despite various attempts, the Team was unable to garner any responses from contacts in Myanmar. Respondents were 19.7 percent female, and 67.7 percent of them had completed a graduate degree, demonstrating a very high education level. 18 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Figure 2: Survey responses by country LIMITATIONS AND RISKS While the factors outlined below constrained the evaluation in various ways, the Evaluation Team was able to successfully mitigate the most significant potential limitations and is confident that none of them caused serious risks to the validity of evaluation findings. Attribution and Generalizability The most significant limitation in the evaluation relates to attribution. In the absence of baseline data or a valid comparison group, findings and conclusions related to program effectiveness rely almost exclusively on stakeholder perceptions. This is further complicated by the fact that Freeland—and its Chief of Party—had been working in the region for years prior to launching the ARREST program. The fact that multiple donors and implementers are actively working to combat wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia presents challenges for making judgments about attribution. This limitation was understood from the outset of the evaluation, and the evaluation questions were accordingly focused less on attribution and more on implementation, program approach and contribution. In addition, while the Evaluation Team sought to collect data from as many respondents and from as many locations and stakeholders as possible, due to time constraints, the Evaluation Team was only able to reach 189 respondents through interviews in five countries. Given that much of the data collected in this evaluation was qualitative and collected from a convenience sample, the Evaluation Team is somewhat limited in its ability to generalize findings beyond direct respondents, although these respondents represent nearly all prioritized stakeholders and target groups. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 19 Recall Bias Recall bias is a common evaluation problem, in that program beneficiaries may respond to questions posed by the Evaluation Team with answers that blend their experiences into a composite memory. Given the involvement of USAID/RDMA and Freeland in the predecessor ASEAN-WEN Support Program, key informants may not have made clear distinctions between assistance provided before and after April 2011 (when the ARREST program began). Furthermore, individuals who may have participated in training conducted by other implementers and/or on several topics may not distinguish them as separate activities. Freeland itself conducts additional activities with non-USAID funding, and some key informants may have participated in training conducted by Freeland but not funded by USAID/RDMA. Response Bias Another potential limitation relates to response bias that may occur if respondents think that providing certain responses or information to the Evaluation Team may lead to additional funding or continued participation in training activities, for example. Furthermore, key informants may hesitate or self-censor in KIIs in which USAID staff participate. The Team minimized this limitation through data source triangulation and found, in practice, that interviews with USAID staff present were not substantively different in the type of information presented. In fact, it was during interviews with USAID participation that some of the most unexpected and even negative/critical results were revealed. A related type of response bias could occur if questions are asked in a way that leads respondents to certain responses. Interview protocols and survey questions and response options were designed to be as neutral as possible to mitigate this concern. Selection Bias The Evaluation Team used the snowball sampling technique to minimize the potential for selection bias, including the possibility that USAID/RDMA or Freeland may have—even unintentionally—directed the Team to the most active, responsive, engaged and favorable respondents. The online survey was intended to help mitigate the issue of generalizability, allowing for data collection from a wider group that represented 10 ASEAN member states. While the survey enabled the Team to collect data from five additional countries, respondents from Thailand constituted the highest number of responses. Given the location of USAID/RDMA and Freeland, the Team conducted the most KIIs in Thailand as well. Direct Observation The Evaluation Team would have benefited from direct observation of ARREST program events. Unfortunately, no ARREST program activities were underway during the six weeks allotted for fieldwork. Alternatively, the Team worked with Freeland and ASEAN-WEN PCU staff to convene group interviews during fieldwork in each country. The Evaluation Team reached out to USG and Freeland contacts for assistance with organizing visits to airports and ports in each of the five countries included in fieldwork. Site visits would have afforded team members the opportunity to observe firsthand the kinds of operations conducted at the various facilities and to note any significant differences between countries in 20 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report regards to the types of shipments being received and the manner in which inspections are conducted. The Team could have assessed interdiction procedures and knowledge of CITES regulations, met with ARREST trainees and conducted on-site KIIs of law enforcement staff. Upon arrival in Bangkok, the Evaluation Team was informed by Freeland that, due to security sensitivities and bureaucratic approval processes, it would not be possible to arrange these visits. Given that site visits were not possible, the Team could not use this avenue for better understanding systems in place to detect and interdict endangered species trafficking or for drawing conclusions about how officials apply law enforcement training conducted through the ARREST program. Instead, the Team acquired this data by including relevant questions in the interview protocol for ARREST training beneficiaries. Availability and Participation USG staff members initially identified to serve on the Evaluation Team were unfortunately either not available at all or not available for the full length of time originally planned. Nonetheless, some were able to participate and contributed significantly to the evaluation process. These original members included a Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist from USAID/RDMA, a Media Campaign/BCC Specialist from the USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment (E3) and a Law Enforcement Capacity Building Specialist from USFWS. The Team benefitted greatly from the participation of USAID/RDMA Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Nigoon Jitthai, who was able to participate in one of the three weeks of country visits. Megan Hill of USAID/E3, unavailable to participate in fieldwork, was later able to provide valuable input on BCC to the report. A representative from USFWS was unfortunately unable to participate in the evaluation. The availability of some key informants was limited because of assignment transfers and annual leave. Due to preexisting summer plans, a number of USG, Freeland partners and external expert staff were not available during the fieldwork portion of the evaluation, though some were later interviewed by phone or e-mail following the completion of fieldwork. Freeland’s Chief of Party was out of the country for at least half of the time that the Evaluation Team spent in Bangkok. To their credit, Freeland’s Deputy and other staff were very helpful in answering a number of the Team’s questions, though it would have been useful to have had the direct input of the Chief of Party, who has been the dynamic, driving force behind both the conceptualization and implementation of the ARREST program. Other limitations on the availability of key informants included holidays such as Ramadan in Indonesia and a Buddhist holiday in Thailand, both occurring during scheduled field visits, as well as conferences and meetings of intended interviewees held out of the country during the fieldwork period. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 21 IV. LOOKING BACK (2011–2013): FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The need for international cooperation and networking to combat wildlife trafficking is becoming all the more urgent. The impending softening of borders in Southeast Asia can only be expected to result in and exacerbate more readily accessible and less scrutinized transport of wild species and products throughout the region. Individual states cannot be expected to solve the problems of transnational wildlife crimes and threats to indigenous species without engaging the support of neighboring countries. Freeland aims to influence the actions of countries that provide wildlife products in contravention of national and international laws, countries that facilitate the transport of illicit wildlife products through and across their territories, and countries that consume endangered wildlife products—encouraging and facilitating the regional cooperation needed to stem the transnational flow of endangered species and illegal wildlife products. The ARREST program is off to a strong start. The program has made important progress during its first two years, particularly in its law enforcement training and capacity-building activities. ARREST is exceptionally well positioned to help address rising USG interest in and concern about the illegal wildlife trade both regionally and globally, including its intersection with a broad range of other high-priority issues such as transnational drug and human trafficking crimes and emerging pandemic threats resulting from the illegal transport of animals across borders without any health inspections. The Evaluation Team presents forward-looking discussion, conclusions and recommendations in Annex VI-Looking Forward (2013-2016). DEMAND REDUCTION AND AWARENESS RAISING Evaluation question: To what extent have demand reduction and awareness-raising activities been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? Findings Public Awareness The Evaluation Team’s review of program documents and KIIs with Freeland and its implementing partners confirm that the awareness-raising component of the ARREST program remains in the initial stages of implementation. Working with corporate partners J. Walter 22 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Thompson (JWT) and AsiaWorks Television, Freeland designed and piloted the iTHINK campaign in Thailand at the CITES Conference of the Parties (COP) 16th meeting in March 2013.7 An estimated 2,500 delegates from 180 countries were exposed to the campaign messages. iTHINK messages are displayed in public spaces in Thailand such as subway stations, sky-train stations, parks and the Bangkok international airport; Freeland reported that more than two million passengers were exposed to iTHINK banners in the customs section of the airport. Local partners in China and Vietnam are poised to support the expansion of the iTHINK campaign into those countries, which are priorities for demand reduction. The Evaluation Team did not focus its efforts on assessing ARREST’s performance in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Malaysia, where awareness-raising activities have been comparatively fewer in number. Yet, ARREST program documents reported that Freeland showcased iTHINK campaign materials during the “Save Our Wildlife Exhibition” in Kuala Lumpur. Hosted by Berjaya University, the event attracted 10,000 people. In comparison to other countries, the awareness-raising program component has been limited in the Philippines and Indonesia.8 In discussing the objectives and impact of the iTHINK campaign with Freeland, implementing partners and external actors, the Evaluation Team learned that the foundational stage of iTHINK uses messages from key opinion leaders to elevate consciousness about choices related to illegal wildlife trade. The simplicity and common aesthetic of iTHINK are intended to serve as a template for each country to tailor the campaign to its own cultural or political realities. JWT, which designed the campaign in consultation with Freeland, noted that iTHINK could be transformed into a tactical campaign that targets specific audiences to promote their understanding of needed actions. For example, the Fin Free campaign (conducted by Freeland with non-ARREST funding) was a tactical campaign that achieved commitments and action by a targeted group of hotels in Bangkok. The Evaluation Team considered this distinction between awareness campaigns and tactical campaigns when assessing the intended outcomes and actual impact of the iTHINK campaign. In all countries visited by the Evaluation Team, NGOs have been engaged in various efforts to increase public awareness about wildlife trafficking. Key informants reported varying levels of success, as well as a consensus that impact and attribution in this area are exceptionally difficult to measure. Several of Freeland’s peers—most notably TRAFFIC and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)—spoke with the Evaluation Team about their use of BCC strategies and social 7 Freeland received pro bono support from JWT valued at USD $100,000–150,000 for creative work and time for the iTHINK Campaign. Freeland obtained a 25–40 percent cost reduction from AsiaWorks for each production. 8 Freeland indicated that its public-awareness activities in Indonesia are intended to begin in 2015, while launching similar activities in the Philippines would require additional funding. Freeland reports that local NGOs have been identified to support public-awareness activities in both countries. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 23 marketing tools to address underlying influences of behavior, present alternative choices and alter habits.9 Integrated communications plans that outline iTHINK campaign strategies to be launched in China and Vietnam consider consumer behaviors, identify primary target audiences (government, youth and business) and establish entry points for participatory engagement with each group.10 In addition, Rapid Asia conducts post-campaign effectiveness surveys that index changes in knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) among audiences of Freeland campaigns. As Freeland and its partners refine and implement future stages of the iTHINK campaign, the Evaluation Team recommends that BCC strategies continue to be utilized in the project design stage to achieve greater impact in addressing root causes of wildlife consumption.11 Regionally, Freeland has produced two three-dimensional animated public service announcements (PSAs) aired by three local broadcasters. Freeland is now working to achieve wider reach for the PSAs via a satellite channel that broadcasts in five countries: southern China, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. ARREST program documents report progress in raising awareness about wildlife trafficking in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Malaysia. The Evaluation Team did not examine these reported cases of success. Two billboards have been installed to promote a wildlife hotline in high-traffic areas of Phnom Penh and Siem Reap in Cambodia, and Khmer and English campaign messages have been installed in international airports in the cities. The hotline service has successfully promoted the involvement of the public in reporting wildlife crime. Freeland reported that the hotline received 139 calls—leading to the confiscation of 233 animals, five arrests and the collection of approximately US $2,700 in fines. Measuring Success The majority of key informants interviewed by the Evaluation Team asserted that it is too early to determine the extent to which ARREST awareness-raising activities have been successful in reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products. Not only does the iTHINK campaign remain in its early stages—one country and five months into implementation at the time of this evaluation—but altering beliefs and behaviors is also a long-term endeavor that cannot be achieved through dissemination of some key messages among the general public. This 9 For example, WWF Philippines established a sustainable alternative for tuna smugglers, who now train their communities on how to catch, conserve and sell blue tuna for four times the price of smuggling tuna overseas. The campaign is designed to highlight the benefits of doing similar things in a different way. 10 The Evaluation Team reviewed initial drafts of 2013-2016 planning documents that were produced by Freeland in July 2013 (Vietnam) and August 2013 (China). It is anticipated that revised versions of the documents will be produced after the period covered by this mid-term evaluation. 11 See Annex V, which outlines Potential Contributions of Behavior Communication Change (BCC) to ARREST: Rationale and Next Steps. 24 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report perspective was shared among donors, government officials and international and local NGO representatives with detailed knowledge of the illegal wildlife trade and various in-country operating environments. Informants highlighted the many challenges associated with eliminating root causes and transforming entrenched attitudes and practices related to wildlife consumption. At the same time, a number of NGOs identified youth as receptive to new perspectives and potential educators of their peers and families. Freeland uses campaign tracking to determine whether its public-awareness messages resonate with intended audiences; the Evaluation Team identified campaign tracking as a best practice used by a number of peer NGOs to test campaign messages and assess impact. Two research firms, Rapid Asia and Horizon Key Research, collect data to inform Freeland’s awareness-raising activities. Rapid Asia supports the implementation and analysis of consumer campaign pre- and post-surveys in Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam; Horizon Key Research conducted a wildlife consumption behavior survey in China. A campaign-effectiveness survey conducted in 2012 with 452 people in the Lao PDR airport found that most respondents did not understand the meaning of the Freeland public-awareness messages: “Protect our wildlife, protect our future;” “Every time you buy, nature pays;” “Stop illegal wildlife trade” and “Illegal wildlife trade is punishable by law.” Freeland staff indicated that the lack of clarity was due, in part, to the challenges related to approval of images and text by the Lao PDR airport authorities. The campaign effectiveness survey reiterated that messages should be simple and clear, repeated and distributed throughout a physical space through various creative methods. Feedback provided to the Evaluation Team through KIIs suggests that audiences in Thailand responded positively to the iTHINK campaign and its involvement of male and female intellectuals who are also public figures. Overall, key informants believed that awareness-raising activities conducted by Freeland successfully informed residents and increased awareness about wildlife crimes in Thailand. This finding is supported by a survey conducted by Rapid Asia about the impact of the iTHINK campaign on audiences in Thailand. Survey results released in July 2013 indicate a 35 point increase in the KAP Index for buyers of wildlife and conclude that the campaign “met its main objective to help make people aware and start thinking about doing the right thing.” The survey acknowledges that the iTHINK campaign has increased knowledge and reinforced positive attitudes about wildlife consumption in Thailand. Meanwhile, it notes that there are opportunities for improvement in the area of behavioral intent. The majority of key informants conveyed that the iTHINK campaign could be successful throughout the region, provided that the campaign is appropriately tailored to country-specific contexts. Donors, Freeland partners, government officials and NGO representatives emphasized that market research and local knowledge should inform the selection of distinct types of key opinion leaders to be featured by iTHINK in each country. Celebrities, athletes, business leaders and political figures—both local and foreign—garner different levels of respect depending on culture, domestic politics and foreign policy. Diplomacy may be required to gain necessary approvals in societies where freedom of speech is constrained. In other cases, certain types of key opinion leaders may remain off limits; for example, Chinese politicians are not permitted to issue public statements or appear in commercials. On another front, Freeland partners and other ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 25 key informants working in China noted that the concept of the individual “I” as a power center to encourage personal action may not resonate in Chinese culture, which tends to be comparatively community-based. Alternate translations may need to be considered. Moving forward, it will be critical for the iTHINK campaign to consider culturally sensitive perspectives offered by Freeland’s local partners and peer NGOs. Leveraging Partnerships Freeland’s collaboration with local partners helps to expand its geographic reach, local expertise and strategic relationships beyond its Bangkok headquarters in order to successfully implement wildlife demand-reduction activities on a regional scale. Freeland’s selection of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), a well-established and widely respected NGO based in Beijing, provides a solid foundation for launching the iTHINK campaign in China. Freeland’s implementing partner for online consumer reduction efforts in China, IFAW has extensive background in implementing similar campaigns, providing related guidance to peer NGOs in China and leveraging local partnerships to disseminate its messages. For example, the Evaluation Team spoke with IFAW and JCDecaux representatives about the latter’s pro bono provision of physical space in metro stations for IFAW campaign messages about illegal wildlife trafficking—including at a station adjacent to a market that sells illegal wildlife products. The relationship and campaign materials have led to networking opportunities for IFAW, such as increased access to business leaders and potential financial or political support for its campaigns. Companies like JCDecaux that value environmental sustainability, investment in local communities and corporate social responsibility are prime candidates for partnership with Freeland. To launch the iTHINK campaign in Vietnam, Freeland is working with Education for Nature– Vietnam (ENV), a local NGO that seeks to be a bridge between citizens and law enforcement authorities and to offer a platform for the Vietnamese public to voice its views on conservation. As part of the ARREST program, ENV presented Wildlife Hero Awards to Vietnamese law enforcement officers and media personnel who are dedicated to wildlife conservation. ARREST also supported the production of Vietnam’s biodiversity program, which aired on all local television stations and was publicized using social media tools. ENV provided input to Freeland about identifying local key opinion leaders to be featured in the iTHINK campaign in Vietnam, but like IFAW in China, ENV lacks direction on next steps, roles and responsibilities for producing tailored campaign materials. At the time of the evaluation, both IFAW and ENV noted that their grant agreements with Freeland were near expiration, and staff were unclear about future activity plans. Key informants at ENV also spoke with the Evaluation Team about their advocacy efforts to improve the legislation and policy environment around wildlife trafficking. ENV works with National Assembly members to improve national laws and with provincial leaders to rule favorably on high-level provincial cases. ENV believes that its work with National Assembly members and government staff is somewhat unusual given the negative impression of and suspicious attitude toward NGOs in Vietnam. Over time, government officials have observed ENV’s commitment to the issues and offered regular support. ENV believes that policy 26 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report advocacy—along with public-awareness and advocacy campaigns—is particularly successful when it originates from a local NGO with permanent in-country staff and a demonstrated local commitment to the issues at hand. At the same time, ENV representatives told the Evaluation Team that “our voice is very quiet” and international pressure is needed to influence wildlife￾related policies and their implementation. ENV’s policy advocacy activities are not funded via the ARREST program; additional support from the USG for policy advocacy—funding, political will, strategic partnerships and international pressure—would help to bolster demand reduction efforts in the country. In China, the Evaluation Team attended an NGO coordination meeting convened by Freeland’s partner at Beijing Normal University and learned that a number of NGOs are pursuing parallel public-awareness campaigns that entail potential synergies with Freeland activities. Provided that NGOs are able to define specific roles and contributions and overcome the branding and “logo soup” that could ensue, the iTHINK campaign could be a vehicle for promoting cohesion among ARREST partners and peer NGOs. In addition, key informants from Vietnam-based ENV noted that coordination meetings of Freeland partners, held in Bangkok and Hanoi, had been extremely useful. ENV noted that it would be beneficial for Vietnamese NGOs to work more closely with Chinese NGOs—especially given the countries’ common wildlife demand challenges. Another key informant noted that Vietnam and Indonesia look to China as a regional power and may benefit from increased collaboration and positive modeling by China on the priority issue of wildlife trafficking. Conclusions  Demand Reduction: Reducing demand for illegal wildlife is a long-term endeavor that involves changing knowledge, attitudes and practices. Various conditions and external circumstances can enable or impede such changes. Given these factors and the number of public-awareness activities conducted by various NGOs, it will not be possible to attribute measurable shifts in demand reduction to Freeland activities exclusively. While iTHINK received a positive response in Thailand, it is too early to determine the campaign’s overall contributions to public awareness in all targeted countries. ARREST’s impact on demand reduction might not be realized during the program period.  Behavior Change Communication: BCC theories have been developed and applied effectively—especially in the health sector, but also by NGOs active in the wildlife conservation arena—to enable people to initiate and sustain constructive alternative behaviors. iTHINK campaign strategies to be launched in China and Vietnam consider consumer behavior, and the ARREST program measures behavior change through campaign-effectiveness surveys. Future phases of iTHINK and other Freeland campaigns could benefit from consulting and emulating models of success to encourage and incentivize alternative behaviors among consumers of wildlife products.  Target Audiences: Still in the early stages of implementation, the iTHINK public￾awareness campaign did not intentionally target specific groups in Thailand. Instead, KIIs with Freeland, JWT, AsiaWorks and implementing partner staff indicated that the ARREST communications strategy, until now, had been directed at the general public. Meanwhile, ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 27 Freeland’s integrated communications plans for iTHINK campaign strategies to be launched in China and Vietnam cite the motivations and practices of particular groups and the need to tailor messages accordingly. In its July 2013 campaign effectiveness survey, Rapid Asia recommended that Freeland consider developing separate messages for buyers and non-buyers of wildlife products, thereby having iTHINK messages that are more relevant and targeted. Consumer survey results or needs assessment interviews could be used to strengthen and refine messages for women, youth or citizens of a particular economic standing as well as to promote or create an enabling and supportive environment for behavior change of those groups. Cultural understanding is critical, especially as it relates to the values and motivations of buyers and consumers.  Public Awareness Partnerships: Freeland has pursued a strategic and effective approach by identifying respected local NGOs and experts to serve as partners in conducting its public-awareness campaigns. ENV in Vietnam, IFAW in China and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) in the Philippines possess complex knowledge about the operating environment and can help to facilitate relationships with peer NGOs, government officials and corporate sponsors. Freeland’s capable partners are eager to provide informed input to guide the tailored roll-out of iTHINK in other countries.  Communications Resources: While Freeland’s work with law enforcement focuses on short-term immediate consequences and requires tactical investment, demand reduction requires conceptual investment in long-term targeted interventions. Some of Freeland’s peer NGOs devote robust financial and human resources to develop and implement innovative communications strategies. Meanwhile, Freeland staff are already managing operations, training and public relations; they have not yet devoted specific attention to mass communications. With only three Freeland staff to manage the many activities described in ARREST program documents, additional human resources would be beneficial. Recommendations  Continue to refine the ARREST demand-reduction strategy, building upon successful awareness-raising activities and focusing increasingly on behavior change communication. Building upon successful public-awareness activities, Freeland should integrate USAID’s global experience with BCC into its approach to demand reduction. As Freeland and its partners develop and implement future stages of the iTHINK campaign in China and Vietnam, they should consider detailed recommendations outlined by USAID and the Evaluation Team in Annex V-Potential Contributions of BCC to ARREST: Rationale and Next Steps. Consultation with BCC strategists will ensure that public-awareness messages are accompanied by a holistic approach to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products. (Freeland)  Consider the potential benefits of tailoring messages for target audiences: youth, those intending to purchase, decision-makers, female buyers, elites, villagers, traders and the public sector. Freeland and its implementing partners should continue to use 28 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report consumer surveys to understand priority groups, identify content to include in campaign messages and fashion effective demand reduction strategies.12 (Freeland, Implementing Partners)  Discuss roles and responsibilities related to the expansion of iTHINK with NGO and media partners in China and Vietnam. Freeland implementing partners ENV and IFAW require clarity on roles and budget allocations for the campaign. Other peer NGOs are involved in parallel public-awareness campaigns that entail potential synergies with Freeland activities. Particularly in China, Freeland should continue to convene other NGOs and refine its strategy to leverage best practices and strategic relationships. (Freeland, Implementing Partners)  Continue to forge partnerships with private sector entities that value environmental sustainability, investment in local communities and corporate social responsibility. Non-traditional partners that may have tangential involvement in wildlife conservation should also be considered. For instance, the Evaluation Team learned that the World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies collaborates with the Chinese State Forestry Administration (SFA) to promote the protection of endangered species while supporting the practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) on an international scale. (Freeland, Implementing Partners)  Foster strategic alliances that bolster policy advocacy efforts to reduce the demand for illegal wildlife. Additional support from the USG for policy advocacy could include funding, political will, strategic partnerships and international pressure. For example, key informants in China noted the positive impact of visits by high-profile U.S. politicians who highlighted wildlife conservation in their agendas and talking points. USAID should also promote the exchange of information about consumer demand surveys and evidence￾based policy advocacy strategies—within and across ARREST target countries—both by NGOs and USG partners. (RDMA, DoS, U.S. Mission to ASEAN, USG Partners)  Ensure sufficient financial support for Freeland to recruit a dedicated communications team. Freeland team members should include an experienced BCC expert, digital strategist and outreach staff. The BCC expert could lead the refinement of Freeland’s demand-reduction approach as described above. A digital strategist could help Freeland determine where to place its messages, how to increase its online presence and with whom to partner for greater visibility. (In addition to Facebook, Freeland should have an increased presence on YouTube and Twitter.) Following IFAW’s model, the digital 12 For example, TRAFFIC and WWF conducted a consumer research survey on rhino horn usage in Vietnam (2013), which provides a detailed analysis and discusses the cultural elements that influence the buyers of wildlife trade. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 29 strategist could also use technology to support Freeland’s work in preventing online wildlife sales. (RDMA)  Recruit additional media savvy individuals with experience in the marketing field and connections with the private sector. A media team could think about specific issues to tackle and how to target messages. It would be useful if the expanded team members had existing background in media and connections with media buying agencies in each ARREST target country. A media team could also help to develop innovative tools, such as mobile applications to report sightings of illegal wildlife to law enforcement. (Freeland) LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING Evaluation question: To what extent has law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized and improved anti-poaching and anti-trafficking efforts within ASEAN-WEN countries and regionally? Findings The Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) In its interviews with key informants, including national WEN focal point members, the Evaluation Team found that some national WENs—both at the field-level and senior-level cross￾border intelligence-share focal points—were not functioning as well as conceived, particularly in meeting and coordinating regularly with members from various law enforcement agencies within the country. Members of one WEN stated that they had not met in a long time, and before Operation Cobra (see under SIGs), they were not having regular meetings at all. The head of another WEN stated that meetings were held irregularly and attended only by low-ranking staff members who were not authorized to make any high-level decisions, especially where several different agencies were involved; when members did meet, they did not discuss substantive issues. However, members of one of the WENs felt that their internal coordination was working well, as evidenced by the meeting itself being well attended by members who represented different agencies. When asked about their interactions with the PCU, opinions among the WENs and others varied; some WENs questioned the value and benefits of the PCU and viewed it mainly as a distributer of newsletters and information compiled from the other WENs, while members of another WEN spoke very highly of the PCU’s support and coordination role. All of the WENs agreed that the PCU was not yet very effective in providing support to the WENs in all matters pertaining to the functioning of an integrated regional law enforcement network, and interviewees asserted that the PCU needed strengthening of its staff, technical communication and budget if it were to function as intended as a regional coordinating entity. Most of the WEN contacts interviewed felt that there needed to be a greater role by the PCU in coordinating workshops, training and coordination of law enforcement efforts among the national WENs. One informant expressed that because of its location in Bangkok, the PCU was viewed by many of the WENs as being strictly a Thailand program and not an ASEAN-wide support office. 30 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report The Team met with full-time staff at the PCU on three occasions in an effort to gain a better understanding of the entity’s roles and responsibilities as well as its current staffing capacity. Discussions with full-time PCU staff revealed that while they were tasked with many responsibilities, they were stretched thin over the entire 10-country ASEAN region with an extremely limited staff and a very limited budget for travel, meetings and workshops. However, the staff appears to be very dedicated to providing useful information to the WENs and to holding coordination meetings. Currently, in an effort to strengthen its capacity, a secondment from TRAFFIC is working two days per week at the PCU office to provide assistance on endangered species issues and several trainees are undergoing skills training in website development and technical communication. The Evaluation Team was told by a key informant that interactions between the PCU and ARREST/Freeland are perceived as minimal and primarily related to transfer of funds between USAID and the PCU. However, the Evaluation Team later learned that a Freeland staff member is based in the PCU full-time and another Freeland staff member spends one day a week there. PCU staff interviewed by the Evaluation Team on several occasions neglected to mention or discuss the Freeland secondments and their contributions. Temporary staff seconded from ASEAN member states to the PCU are useful and provide input from their home countries. However, their rotations are limited in time, constraining their ability to become fully oriented to the PCU’s operations or to engage in long-term initiatives. Special Investigation Groups (SIGs)—Operation Cobra 13 Operation Cobra was viewed by the majority of participants interviewed as a very effective cross-border, network-building exercise that served to develop investigative skills and intelligence gathering and to build collaborative relationships with LE officials in other countries. Although not funded through ARREST, this operation resulted in significant on-the-ground enforcement actions on wildlife trafficking over a broad geographic scale and demonstrated what could be accomplished with a coordinated effort among countries. During group interviews, LE officials in the countries visited by the Evaluation Team felt very strongly about the positive contributions that Operation Cobra provided to their knowledge, skills and networking abilities and voiced their desire to see similar operations continue. In addition to the concrete results in interdicting illegal wildlife trafficking, the interpersonal and professional relationships developed among the participants during this month-long exercise were viewed as being of equal significance to the actual law enforcement skills that were learned. According to several LE officials who participated in this operation, these relationships continue into the present and have provided useful intelligence information and coordination among countries in fighting 13 Operation Cobra was not funded through the ARREST program, but by USFWS and the Chinese government. However, ARREST provided complementary funds to support USFWS and Freeland staff who facilitated the operation. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 31 international wildlife crime; however, not all LE agencies in other countries have had similar opportunities or experiences. Participants and supporters of Operation Cobra were equally enthusiastic about continuing such exercises in other countries as well as focusing on other species. They were particularly interested in conducting a marine SIG that would include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coast Guard, Navy and Fisheries Enforcement officials in addition to the national police, rangers, border guards and others who participated in Operation Cobra. Some of the protected area rangers also expressed interest in a SIG focused on illegal logging of CITES-listed tree species such as Siam Rosewood, including additional partners such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and national forestry ministries. Freeland is very aware of the request by many ASEAN countries for it to promote and organize additional SIGs and has already made plans to conduct a marine SIG (“Cobra II”) in the near future. Training of Prosecutors and the Judiciary Although no prosecutors or judges were interviewed by the Evaluation Team, several comments were received specifically from NGOs, WEN members and RDMA staff that it would be helpful if LE officials worked more closely with prosecutors and judges throughout the process of apprehending and prosecuting individuals involved in wildlife crimes, rather than communicating only after the fact. In addition to correct identification and forensic analyses of confiscated specimens or products, LE officials at all levels expressed the need for them and others to be better trained in such matters as proper techniques and methods of evidence gathering, data analysis, and, in particular, case-building. According to some informants, there have been many instances in which criminals were apprehended and illegal wildlife items confiscated only to have the cases viewed by prosecutors as not having enough evidence or not otherwise being sufficient for trial or thrown out in court by judges. And, according to informants, in other instances where prosecution was successful, the penalties that were administered were considered too lenient by LE officials to serve as any real deterrent to the commission of similar crimes in the future. Various groups interviewed emphasized that penalties for wildlife crimes are too lenient; this reality has apparently served to frustrate and discourage LE officials in their anti-trafficking activities. According to some NGOs and USG officials, courses that have been developed and conducted by ARREST for prosecutors and judges to specifically inform them of the nature of wildlife crimes and to assist them in developing cases and determining appropriate penalties to serve as deterrents have not always been successful. In some instances, prosecutors and judges were invited to participate in the same courses that were being held for LE officials. Most prosecutors and judges did not wish to be subjected to one week or 10 days in the field listening to techniques and tactical training on how to apprehend criminals and, being more used to courtrooms and chambers, were uncomfortable being in an outdoor environment among LE field agents; therefore, many refused to attend. The Evaluation Team learned at its meeting with the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) Secretariat in Jakarta that AIPA enjoys a close and positive working relationship with Freeland staff. The Freeland Chief of Party's presentation to the Plenary Session of the General Assembly 32 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report last year was instrumental in the development of a Letter of Cooperation (LOC) (December 4, 2012) between the two organizations, a document that seeks to increase communication and cooperation on the issue of combating wildlife trafficking in the ASEAN region, including awareness-raising and policy issues. AIPA is very enthusiastic about the LOC but stated that it is still too early to have produced any results; interviewees noted that a follow-up meeting or workshop with parliamentarians would ensure progress. The Secretariat also suggested that USAID be included in the LOC. Although AIPA receives continued informational inputs from Freeland, the Secretariat expressed its desire to more forcefully and visually raise the issue of wildlife trafficking with parliamentarians and policymakers in the ASEAN region. The Secretariat suggested a presentation by the Freeland Chief of Party to the IAPA Caucus on the serious nature of wildlife crimes and their connection to other criminal trafficking syndicates. In addition, the Secretariat requested that Freeland provide concise one- to two-page summaries and updates on the ARREST program for distribution to all ASEAN Members of Parliament. With respect to awareness-raising, the Secretariat and an advisor to AIPA mentioned that specific groups need to be identified and targeted, including parliamentarians. Institutionalizing LE Capacity Building—Training of Trainers (ToT) Institutionalization of LE training appears to be making good progress in several ASEAN member states. The consensus from a number of LE officials—including front-line rangers—who participated in such training exercises both prior to and during the first half of the ARREST program is that Freeland has done an exceptional job in conducting professional training courses in detection and protection. While some training programs have been carried out in individual ASEAN member states, many have been held in Thailand and have included select representatives from several ASEAN countries, often at the same time. Most recipients of Freeland training praised the quality and content of the training and have come away with new skills relevant to their jobs. Not all, however, are without their criticism of certain aspects of the training program, particularly about the relevance of training to all recipients (e.g., port inspectors, quarantine officers and prosecutors), the need for translators and the use of modern weapons and equipment demonstrated during the training that are not available in their countries. A number of suggestions on specific kinds of training needs were expressed by several interviewees, including front-line beneficiaries. These included the need to conduct more training on topics such as intelligence-gathering and undercover work in addition to traditional protect and repressive trainings; conduct training on case-building, species identification and smuggling techniques; and carry out training in environments other than forests, e.g., coastal/marine areas and ports. In addition, NGOs and protected area rangers were among those who remarked on the need to involve local communities and NGOs in various law enforcement training, such as monitoring and surveillance, intelligence gathering, data analysis and other useful skills development in support of law enforcement officials. There was general agreement, however, that these trainings should not involve firearm training. Of the LE training recipients interviewed, at least three remarked that they had attended more than one training course, including team leader training. They often served as assistants to ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 33 Freeland trainers during subsequent training sessions and look to the ARREST training to help them become certified as trainers in their own countries; Indonesia, for example, has a lengthy and rigorous requirement. Several of these same informants noted that they wished to train their fellow countrymen in their own language and under field conditions and environments specific to their country rather than having to rely indefinitely on expatriate-led organizations such as Freeland for continued training. This sentiment was widely expressed by training recipients in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Wildlife programs in the Philippines, for example, have already begun carrying out training programs for their own LE officers in techniques specific to combating wildlife crimes. LE officials also expressed, however, that they could benefit from additional Training of Trainers (ToT) courses to improve their training skills. A training workshop scheduled for late Fall 2013 in the Philippines will be conducted entirely by local wildlife officers, and Freeland staff will be invited to attend as observers to provide technical feedback on their training content and delivery. The Role of NGOs in Law Enforcement The composition of Freeland’s staff reflects its heavy emphasis on and expertise in law enforcement, with several staff members coming from, for example, the ranks of the Australian military, New Scotland Yard, USFWS, Customs and the police, among others. Opinions regarding the role that NGOs such as Freeland should play in training law enforcement officers to fight wildlife crimes vary, with some international LE agencies and USG agencies voicing the strongest concerns. On the other hand, most forest and park rangers who were direct recipients of Freeland training extolled the skills and training they received, especially as compared to that provided by their national governments. The types of LE training courses that Freeland provides as part of the ARREST program are numerous, from enforcement ranger training and patrol tactics to wildlife crime investigation, data collection and monitoring, team leader training and ToT. Courses under the Park Ranger Outreach and Tactical Enforcement Capacity Training (PROTECT) program, given to protected area rangers on-site, have received high marks from the rangers in helping them to reconnoiter their areas and to gather useful data on both illegal activities and animal/plant populations. Several other courses such as marine enforcement training are proposed or under development. Many of the courses offered by Freeland are conducted in the field, which greatly increases their value and relevance—particularly to LE officials in parks and other protected areas and border stations. Rangers and others interviewed by the Evaluation Team noted that Freeland provided quality instruction and equipment that was directly applicable to their jobs in the field, and that the tools such as Global Positioning System (GPS) and handheld electronic devices provided to them were both affordable and reliable. In the view of these field-based LE officials, Freeland instructors were not only very knowledgeable and competent, but also readily available to respond to their questions; work out new solutions to emerging problems or issues; and service equipment. In contrast, field officers complained that training conducted by their own national governments was often held in strictly classroom environments, requests for equipment or other needs often took a long time to respond to (if at all) and the equipment provided to them was frequently of inferior quality and regularly broke down in the field. 34 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report If there was a significant complaint that LE trainees expressed to the Evaluation Team about Freeland, it was that translation could at times be very awkward and slow-going if the training was conducted by expatriates, as most training is, and was even worse when trainees came from a number of different countries. Some also felt that instruction placed too much emphasis on field sites such as forests and not enough on places such as ports and quarantine stations where wildlife trafficking conditions are markedly different. All in all, however, training recipients were very satisfied with the type and quality of instruction provided by Freeland. When asked whether NGOs such as Freeland should be involved in field operations, the overwhelming response from all parties was “no,” though responses from several LE field agents were not as unequivocal. Even tactical training and field manuals conducted and developed by Freeland that showed the use of guns were looked upon by many agencies as not being appropriate for an NGO. Based on its policies, USAID has a particular concern about any weapons training being conducted by an NGO such as Freeland. Most international and USG agencies interviewed by the Evaluation Team opined that, when there is a void of available LE trainers in areas where significant poaching and trafficking of endangered wildlife is taking place, NGOs such as Freeland (which have considerable law enforcement expertise) can play an important temporary role in training LE officials in anti￾poaching and anti-trafficking activities. But the emphasis is on temporary, until a professional and preferably international LE organization such as WCO, INTERPOL or UNODC can provide such training; key informants also suggested continuing to use training facilities such as the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA). Although interviewees highlighted several advantages to using NGOs of Freeland’s capabilities in this capacity, particularly for their cost￾effectiveness, greater flexibility in being able to spend funds and in responding quickly to emerging needs and situations—and also when there are no other immediately available alternatives—NGOs, even those with considerable capabilities such as Freeland, do not have the same law enforcement capabilities as the aforementioned international LE organizations. Also, the NGOs themselves are not institutionalized within the country, though they can and do promote institutionalization through ToT. Online Trade in Illegal Wildlife Products Some LE and WEN officials who were interviewed by the Evaluation Team remarked that one of the biggest challenges they face is Internet wildlife trafficking, which makes it easier for dealers and buyers to both market and purchase illegal wildlife and their products behind the scenes and out of the visibility of traditional wildlife enforcement networks and practices. These respondents felt they needed solutions and welcomed the experiences of other countries with similar problems. The growth of this type of e-commerce has been well documented in China and has become a global phenomenon. Freeland’s partner, IFAW, has made substantial progress in understanding, anticipating and combating Internet sales of wildlife in China. Conclusions The LE component is one of ARREST's strongest areas and the furthest along of its three components. While all elements are still in their relatively early stages of implementation, they ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 35 are close to where they should be at this mid-point in the ARREST program. While some countries have yet to benefit from the ARREST LE training and institutionalization process, others, such as the Philippines, have made substantially more progress in this regard, both with respect to the functioning of their national WENs and movement toward independently conducting their own trainings. Other WENs appear to have lost forward momentum both in their internal and external coordination efforts. This is in part due to lack of support by their central governments and in part due to the PCU’s inability to provide more substantial support and mentoring because of understaffing and budget limitations, which has also hampered the PCU’s own progress as an ASEAN-wide coordinating entity. Although Freeland’s involvement in supporting the WENs and in providing anti-poaching and anti-trafficking training has been unequal through the region, most recipients of ARREST/Freeland LE training give it high marks. A number of high-profile arrests and seizures, especially through Operation Cobra, suggest that moderate progress is being made in anti-trafficking efforts as a result of the ARREST program.  WENs: The national WENs (initially called National Task Forces, a terminology still used in some cases) were conceived of as the backbone of combating wildlife crime in Southeast Asia, both within and among individual countries. A strong network of interagency, intraregional and international law enforcement agencies, supported by each individual ASEAN member state in cooperation with environmental NGOs, is essential to tackling wildlife trafficking across the region. Due to differences in how WENs in the varying countries are currently functioning and are being supported by their governments, the WENs will continue to need close monitoring by Freeland, PCU, ASEAN Secretariat and donor agencies, as well as support and strengthening if they are to remain an effective anti-wildlife trafficking force in the region. The location of the WEN network within the ASEAN structure has not provided it with either the visibility or the political and financial support it needs to become fully effective and sustainable. The issue of where it is currently located and where it might be moved deserves immediate attention.  WEN Program Coordination Unit: The PCU is inadequately staffed and funded to deliver the multitude of responsibilities it has been tasked with and, as a result, it has not received equal support or appreciation throughout the ASEAN network as it strives to achieve its full potential. The enormous amount of time and effort that has been devoted to getting ASEAN member states to commit the relatively meager sum of US $10,000/year to support the PCU speaks volumes about the low priority currently given to this work. (This issue is covered in greater detail in the section on Evaluation Question 3.) There is also an erroneous perception among some countries that, because of its location in Bangkok, the PCU is strictly a Thailand program, which serves to diminish its acceptance and support in the ASEAN network. The PCU—as conceived and if adequately staffed and funded—can be of enormous benefit in supporting the WENs in combating wildlife crime in Southeast Asia through facilitation and assistance in training, coordination and information-sharing.  SIGs: SIGs are viewed by LE officials—both field agents and managers—as being of significant value in providing critical skills and developing strong personal and professional relationships and collaborations among law enforcement agents throughout the ASEAN-WEN network to effectively conduct cross-border investigations and 36 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report interdictions. Many of the interviewees wished to see these kinds of operations continued and expanded to include other regions and environments—a request that, if implemented, would benefit professional development, cross-border communication and collaboration and improved intelligence-gathering and sharing among LE officials throughout the ASEAN network.  Training of Prosecutors and the Judiciary: It is not enough to apprehend perpetrators and confiscate shipments of illegal wildlife products; ensuring successful prosecution and issuing penalties both serve as significant deterrents to future crimes. ARREST courses that are specific and relevant to both prosecutors and judges dealing with wildlife crime are not widely available or deemed satisfactory by those receiving this training, as most are geared to LE field agents. Also lacking is the necessary collaboration between LE agents in the field and prosecutors from the earliest stages of a criminal case so that each is informed of the details of the situation from both perspectives and to determine precisely what is needed by both sides to ensure a successful prosecution. Lacking also are the tools and training for successful case building and evidence-gathering by field LE officials, whose work can then be used by prosecutors to argue before the judiciary to ensure successful prosecution. Furthermore, the judiciary itself is often not sufficiently informed of the nature and seriousness of wildlife crimes and their impacts on society and therefore does not place very high emphasis on such crimes when issuing judgment and penalties, which may not be adequate or severe enough to deter the commission of future crimes of this type.  Institutionalizing LE Capacity Building—Training of Trainers: Sustainability and institutionalization of LE training was a common priority expressed by both donors and training recipients. The ability of countries to adapt general and boilerplate training methods delivered by ARREST to those specific and relevant to their country’s environments and equipment and to conduct training exercises in their local language is viewed very positively and enthusiastically by LE officials and trainees in ASEAN countries. Once significant ToT has occurred in most ASEAN countries (especially source and transit countries), Freeland’s role as an LE trainer, particularly in tactical training, is likely to diminish as host countries themselves assume primary responsibility for delivering basic wildlife crimes training to their compatriots. However, more advanced training in intelligence- and evidence-gathering, data analysis, preemptive and preventive skills development will likely continue to be needed by individual countries and provided by organizations such as Freeland, USFWS and ILEA.  The Role of NGOs in Law Enforcement: NGOs such as Freeland, with its considerable law enforcement expertise and capabilities, can and do play an important role in strengthening national and regional law enforcement capabilities through training of rangers, border patrol and national police in methods of investigating and combating wildlife crime. Their specific knowledge of wildlife trafficking and methods of countering these activities, as well as their ability to present this information in a usable and relevant format to LE officials involved in this activity, provides a service and value that is not generally available elsewhere. But NGOs do not have the breadth and strength of law enforcement capabilities that USG groups such as USFWS and the U.S. Department of ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 37 Justice (DOJ) or international organizations such as WCO, INTERPOL or UNODC have, nor are they able to deliver government-to-government training that involves the actual use of live weapons and ammunition and to conduct or be involved in actual field operations.  Online Trade in Illegal Wildlife Products: While on-the-ground LE training and investigations are important for combating wildlife crime, and will continue to be so, Internet trading is a newly emerging issue and obstacle to addressing illegal wildlife trafficking. Many countries are currently without resources or technical skills to deal with this problem and are looking for technical input into this issue. IFAW’s best practices in China provide a relevant model for success. Recommendations WENs and the PCU  Advocate for the review of the ASEAN-WEN and the PCU’s location in the overall ASEAN structure. This includes supporting the sovereign decision-making processes and protocols of ASEAN leadership in exploring options that will give the network the higher visibility and increased political and financial support it must have to become more fully effective and sustainable. The considered view of the Evaluation Team is that moving from the Economic Community under the Senior Officials on Forestry to the Political-Security Community under the SOMTC and the AMMTC to whom they report would be the preferred option. For additional details on this proposed move, see Annex VI. Promote the exploration of alternative and diverse sources for PCU financial support until financial sustainability through ASEAN and the ASEAN-WEN Sustainability Plan can be achieved. (RDMA, Freeland, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group, U.S. Mission to ASEAN with the ASEAN Secretariat) SIGs  Continue SIGs and expand them to include other ASEAN countries and other species, including marine species and threatened tree species. Bring additional partners, both international and national government agencies, including the national WENs and the PCU, as well as environmental NGOs into these cross-border, network-building exercises—both for the respective expertise they bring and to promote broader partnerships and relationships among all parties in this regional problem. Seek funding from other sources including USG agencies (e.g., USFWS and DoS/INL) for continuing and expanding SIGs on at least an annual basis in order to maintain pressures on the criminal wildlife trafficking network and to keep up the enthusiasm and momentum within the ASEAN LE community for operations of this sort. (Freeland, RDMA, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group) Training of Prosecutors and the Judiciary  Continue courses that are specific and relevant to prosecutors and judges with respect to wildlife crimes and that highlight the significance of such crimes to society, including economic losses, threats of pandemic diseases and losses of biological diversity 38 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report and associated ecosystem impacts. These courses should also focus on the need to deliver sentences that are appropriate to the severity of the impacts, in order to serve as a deterrent to future crimes of this type. (Freeland, RDMA, USG Partners)  Continue to work closely with legislators in each ASEAN member state to inform and educate Members of Parliament on the nature, severity and significance of wildlife crime within their countries and throughout the region; the connection of wildlife crime to other criminal activities and networks such as human, drug and weapons trafficking; and the scale of economic losses associated with these activities so that appropriate laws, policies and penalties can be developed in order to deter such crimes. (Freeland) Institutionalizing LE Capacity Building—Training of Trainers  Emphasize Training of Trainers over one-off training events to ensure future sustainability of law enforcement personnel trained specifically in wildlife law enforcement techniques. Freeland should expand training to not just include basic protect and repressive training, but also preemptive and preventative training, intelligence gathering, surveillance and case-building modules in an effort to identify who the “Big Bosses” are in the illegal wildlife trade syndicates. (Freeland, Implementing Partners, DoS, USG Partners) Role of NGOs in Law Enforcement  Continue to fund and support the ARREST program’s law enforcement capacity building efforts through the duration of the current cooperative agreement, as long as they do not involve actual involvement in field operations or the use of live weapons and ammunition. Encourage and facilitate closer working relationships between the international law enforcement organizations. Focus on transitioning and handing over this role from NGOs to the training units of the appropriate government agencies both in environment and enforcement ministries of the ASEAN member states. More funding should be allocated for government-to-government relationships to conduct systematic interdictions and region-wide investigations by agencies such as INTERPOL, WCO, UNODC and others. (RDMA, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group)  Invite the full-time USFWS Special Agent to be assigned in Bangkok to provide expert guidance on the law enforcement component of ARREST and to open discussions about increased government-to-government technical support for wildlife law enforcement issues across the region. Explore mechanisms for shifting management responsibility for USG support for wildlife-related law enforcement from USAID and DoS/INL to USFWS in light of the recent USG Executive Order on Combatting Wildlife Trafficking and the preparation of a whole-of-government National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. (RDMA, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 39 ASEAN-WEN PCU Sustainability: Five years ago With assistance from the ASEAN-WEN Support Program, the PCU facilitated the 3rd ASEAN-WEN Meeting 26–27 May 2008 with the Lao PDR Government as the host. The PCU updated the ASEAN-WEN on progress, as well as proposed a “PCU and ASEAN-WEN sustainability and operational plan” for the consideration of ASEAN Member States. The sustainability plan would raise the profile of the ASEAN-WEN among target audiences, strengthen PCU’s connection to the ASEAN Secretariat and help establish a fully functional and financially sustainable PCU. The ASEAN Member States considered the strategy as follows: “The Meeting considered the draft Sustainability and Operational Plan for PCU. Since this matter is needed to consult and agree internally in all Member States, the Meeting requested the PCU to officially send the letter to the focal points of all Member States for further action.” (Paragraph 64, 3rd Annual Meeting Report) Online Trade in Illegal Wildlife Products:  Compile and disseminate the experience and best practices gained in China by Freeland partner IFAW and seek other innovative solutions to combat the online trade in illegal wildlife products in all ASEAN-WEN countries. (Freeland, Implementing Partners) SUSTAINABILITY, PARTNERSHIPS AND LEARNING Evaluation question: To what extent has the program met sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans regarding: 1. ASEAN-WEN and PCU sustainable financing? 2. Regional and transregional partnerships (e.g., between ASEAN-WEN and INTERPOL, CITES, WCO, UNODC), including private sector partnerships? 3. Learning exchanges (e.g., training, SIGs), information exchanges, secondments)? 4. The strengthening of regional centers of excellence? Findings Sustainability The Evaluation Team’s document review and KIIs indicate that there has been clear progress on branding the ASEAN-WEN. However, Freeland has recently expressed some concerns in its 2013 work plan (p. 40): “While the current, rapid replication of WENs in other parts of the world is a testimony to how much of a model ASEAN￾WEN has become, the fact that these other WENs are being developed with hardly any inputs from the innovators of the WEN concept is worrisome. For the WEN brand to stay strong, it is recommended that ARREST team members be allowed to provide inputs as other WENs are being designed. This will also help to ensure that WENs can connect up across continents smoothly.” While Freeland deserves full credit for its work on the WEN concept, the Evaluation Team found that similar ideas have been developed by others. For example, China’s version of the WEN was first initiated in 2005 at a provincial level in 40 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Kunming by a former Regional Director of the CITES Management Authority and later adopted and adapted in 2011 at the central level in Beijing as the National Inter-Agency CITES Enforcement Collaboration Group (NICE-CG). At the Fifth ASEAN-WEN Annual Meeting in Myanmar in 2010, the Chair of the NICE-CG remarked that China was copying the ASEAN-WEN approach with the NICE-CG, a sort of “China-WEN.” China also used the ASEAN-WEN training manuals to create its own and credited ASEAN-WEN in the manual. The Evaluation Team’s review of program documents and KIIs with WEN focal point staff in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam suggest that the sustainability of the ASEAN￾WEN PCU can serve as a useful proxy for the first necessary—although not sufficient—step toward sustainability of the ASEAN-WEN as a whole. PCU financing and sustainability was not included in the Strategic Plan of Actions of the ASEAN￾WEN (2007–2012). However, the ASEAN-WEN PCU, with support from ARREST and others, developed a formal Sustainability Strategy and Plan highlighting the importance of sustainability and of ASEAN member states taking over the funding, staffing and operation of the PCU. This issue has been a key agenda item at each of the annual regional meetings of the WENs. It was included in the ASEAN Regional Action Plan in CITES Wild Fauna and Flora (2011–2015) under Objective 2/Action Point 2.3: Strengthen and sustain the ASEAN-WEN…and its Program Coordination Unit. A detailed timeline of the actions undertaken since 2008 is available in Annex A of the Sustainability Strategy (Agenda Item 8, ASEAN-WEN Information Paper (May 15, 2012)). ASEAN-WEN documents identify several recurring issues, in addition to funding, that have prevented forward movement on PCU sustainability. These barriers include a lack of proactive tutelage and support from the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, the uncertain legal status of the PCU in Thailand and slow momentum on a proposal to solicit external support from other sources through an ASEAN-WEN Project Proposal on “Building a Strong and Effective Network for the Future.” The location of the WEN network within the ASEAN structure—and related limitations on its visibility and political and financial support—is covered in this report’s discussion of Evaluation Question 2 and at length in Annex VI. Key informants interviewed by the Evaluation Team noted that several ASEAN member states that had not been fully supportive of providing financial support to the PCU have recently been convinced to change their position on this issue. Minutes from the most recent regional WEN meeting in Chiang Mai in June 2013 indicated that all of the ASEAN member states had agreed in principle to provide support for the operations of the PCU—amounting to a total of US $100,000 per year, or US $10,000 per country. However, the Evaluation Team received feedback from an ASEAN-WEN focal point stating that a contribution of US $10,000 per year was “too high” and not possible given the budget realities faced by the CITES Management Authority. While this assertion may or may not be the official position of the relevant government, this informed perspective is important to keep in mind when planning for sustainability. Responses to the Evaluation Team’s survey question on support to the PCU provide another indication that financial support may still be an issue. While the PCU receives various forms of support from ASEAN member states, only 4 of 61 (6.6 percent) survey respondents were aware that their country provides financial contributions to the PCU (see Figure 3). Securing financial ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 41 support for the PCU will require continued diplomacy and negotiations to realize the verbal commitments made by ASEAN member states during the June 2013 regional WEN meeting. Figure 3: ASEAN Member State Support to PCU (source: ARREST Mid-term Evaluation Survey) Partnerships Partnerships are a central element of the ARREST program. A first level of partnership is between Freeland and the partners it has assembled to implement the ARREST program (e.g., IFAW, ENV). Interviews and site visits indicate that this level of partnership is working well. A second level of partnership is between Freeland and ASEAN-WEN. KIIs and site visits conducted by the Evaluation Team presented a positive picture overall. Freeland has a close and productive relationship with the PCU and, through the PCU, with the national WENs. In one of the countries visited, WEN focal point staff complained that they were not being kept informed of other activities supported by Freeland through ARREST in their country. A third level of partnership is between the ARREST consortium, led by Freeland, and a wide range of local, national, regional and international groups working on the issue of wildlife trafficking across Southeast Asia and beyond. KIIs and site visits confirm that Freeland has developed effective working relationships with key international organizations (CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC and WCO) and with many NGOs and private sector groups across the region. Of particular note was the special recognition that Freeland and ARREST received at the CITES COP￾16 in early 2013 in Bangkok. During KIIs, three issues surfaced as constraints to further progress on partnerships: transparency, trust and sharing credit. Examples of each are presented below. Transparency: In Vietnam, Freeland’s Chief of Party has been working with the Biodiversity Conservation Agency (BCA) within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) on implementation of the newly-launched Global Environment Facility (GEF)/World Bank Wildlife Demand Reduction project. This project provides important additional resources urgently needed to work on demand reduction. Developing synergies and learning from the experiences of ARREST are both important. However, both the donor and two of the three international 42 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report NGOs interviewed by the Evaluation Team in Vietnam were unclear and concerned about what was being done through ARREST and what was being done in a non-ARREST capacity. Trust as the basis for collaboration: Several organizations in the region raised concerns about collaboration. For example, a survey respondent noted that: “Coordination among the NGOs working on wildlife trade issues… there is clearly work to be done here. Freeland/ARREST could help facilitate. All groups agree on what the problem is. They have their own ideas on how to address the problem.” Another informant, from an international NGO, stated: “While Freeland appears to have done some very good work through the ARREST program, the specter of NGO competition/conflict does appear to limit the effectiveness of the program in the ASEAN region… it has been very apparent to us that Freeland does not enjoy a particularly cooperative reputation with other international NGOs working in the region. This may in part be due to the slightly competitive nature of the USAID funding process and subsequent divisions among potential partners, but it also clearly involves individual personalities.” Sharing credit: During KIIs, several NGOs discussed a tendency by Freeland to take more than its share of credit. The Evaluation Team also came across its own example during fieldwork. Freeland presentations to the Team led us to believe that the development of the SA-WEN had been facilitated directly by Freeland, through its office in Delhi. This was in line with the RDMA/Freeland Cooperative Agreement that includes as one of its 10 “tangible, lasting assets and legacies” a “Functioning SA-WEN Secretariat.” An interview near the end of the Team’s six weeks in the region asserted that the main facilitator is in fact TRAFFIC, which has been working for the past five years to help develop SA-WEN with financial support from DoS. Further inquiry confirmed this assertion: a PowerPoint presented by SA-WEN in May 2012 noted that SA-WEN was receiving technical support from TRAFFIC/WWF, financial support from the World Bank/Global Tiger Initiative (GTI) and TRAFFIC/WWF and collaboration support from ASEAN-WEN and INTERPOL. There was no mention of Freeland. While Freeland was undoubtedly involved with the ASEAN-WEN PCU in its collaboration with SA-WEN, that is not the same thing as directly facilitating the development of SA-WEN. Learning A substantial amount of training has been carried out under the Law Enforcement Capacity Building component of the ARREST program. Most of this training includes learning exchanges between participants. Learning exchange has also been an important, albeit informal, element of the SIGs. Detailed findings, conclusions and recommendations about both of these topics are presented in the report’s discussion of Evaluation Question 2. Other mechanisms for learning exchange have included the ASEAN-WEN website and newsletter, the periodic regional WEN meetings (where important formal and informal learning exchange takes place), other bilateral and regional meetings (e.g., the Thailand–Lao PDR coordination meeting held in Lao PDR in July 2013), study tours (e.g., to Africa) and the regional technical training events that have included participants from across the ASEAN region. Many interviewees stressed the importance of the informal learning exchange and sharing of experiences that takes place during these events—comparing the conditions in each country, ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 43 discussing the challenges, sharing examples of operations that have gone well and others that have failed. In addition, the various Freeland websites and social media channels (e.g., the Faces of Freeland channel on YouTube) provide avenues for information sharing and learning exchange. Another form of learning exchange is secondments to the PCU. Secondments to date have been of two types: staff secondment from national WENs to the PCU for several months to learn about the work of the PCU and to strengthen connections between the PCU and the national WENs; and a longer-term secondment by TRAFFIC of a Bangkok-based WWF staffer to assist the PCU with institutional development tasks. Subsequent to fieldwork, RDMA and Freeland informed the Evaluation Team that a Freeland staff member is based in the PCU full-time and another Freeland staff member spends one day a week there. PCU staff interviewed by the Evaluation Team on several occasions neglected to mention or discuss the Freeland secondments and their contributions. Regional Centers of Excellence The Evaluation Team visited the ACB, a regional “center of excellence” and formal partner of Freeland that has made important contributions to the ARREST program, particularly in supporting its communications work. ARREST support for the other regional capacity-building programs is either in a very early phase (e.g., forensics in Malaysia, wildlife-related environment law in Singapore) or still at a notional/conceptual stage (e.g., marine enforcement training in the Philippines, forest enforcement training in Indonesia or perhaps in Thailand). Documentation provided to the Evaluation Team did not include any written plan for this element of the ARREST program. Except for forensics (Activity 2.9), these programs are not included in the list of activities in the Freeland work plan. Conclusions ARREST has not yet met the overall sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans on ASEAN-WEN and PCU sustainable financing. On this and two other elements under Evaluation Question 3 (learning exchanges and regional and transregional partnerships), important progress has been made. Regarding the fourth element (the establishment of regional centers of excellence), plans need to be reviewed to determine what will be feasible during the remaining years of the program.  Sustainability: RDMA has devoted substantial time and resources since 2005 to help create the national WENs and the regional ASEAN-WEN network. The RDMA/Freeland commitment to fund the PCU runs through 2014. This has been clear since the beginning of the ARREST program. At the Sixth ASEAN-WEN Annual Meeting in the Philippines in May 2011 USAID made it clear that: “Aside from providing a continued commitment for financial and technical support to ASEAN-WEN activities, ARREST has also committed to provide support for two full-time PCU Officers for an extended period of three years (until 2013/2014), during which time ASEAN-WEN should have accomplished its sustainability plan for itself and the PCU.” ASEAN-WEN PCU, Freeland and RDMA have all been working diligently to meet this deadline. 44 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Partnerships: Freeland has developed effective working relationships with key international organizations (CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC and WCO) and with many NGOs and private sector groups across the region. This is a complicated and time-consuming process for any regional program spread across multiple countries. While considerable progress has been made, much remains to be done. The development of a formal relationship between ASEAN-WEN and China’s NICE-CG is a major breakthrough in building shared ownership. It is also a step that moves ARREST from supporting “ASEAN’s Response” toward its ambition of supporting ARREST. Hiring a highly qualified Chinese national as the Freeland/ARREST Deputy Chief of Party is an excellent way to further strengthen Freeland’s connections with China as the ARREST programs gears up its work in that country.  Learning: Although it is difficult to quantify the effect of this element of the program, the exchange of knowledge and experience across the region is viewed as a key contribution of ARREST. Detailed findings, conclusions and recommendations are presented in the report’s discussion of Evaluation Question 2. Important progress is being made, but sustainability has not yet been built into these partnerships and learning exchanges. Coordination with the one regional “center of excellence” that currently exists—the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity—is strong. Except for forensics (Activity 2.9), the other regional training programs being considered as recipients of ARREST support are not included in the list of activities in the Freeland work plan. In the case of forensics, the Evaluation Team notes with concern the absence of any mention of the Tools and Resources for Applied Conservation and Enforcement (TRACE) ASEAN Wildlife Forensics Network, a formal partner of ASEAN-WEN. The ASEAN network has been active since 2009 and TRACE has been working in the region since 2005. As ARREST moves forward with plans for additional regional training and technical support, careful attention needs to be given to understanding who else is doing what—and either working in niches not being covered by others or collaborating fully with those already involved. Recommendations Sustainability  Encourage any ASEAN member states that may be wavering to reaffirm their commitment to supporting the financing of the PCU starting in 2014. Securing financial support for the PCU requires continued diplomacy and negotiations to advocate for ASEAN member states to realize commitments they made during the June 2013 regional WEN meeting. (RDMA, Freeland, U.S. Mission to ASEAN with the ASEAN Secretariat, DoS)  Promote the exploration of alternative sources for financial support to the PCU, if (and only if) needed, until the ASEAN-WEN Sustainability Plan agreement for ASEAN member states to provide direct support is fully implemented. In parallel with the strategy outlined in the above recommendation, it is critical to ensure that the PCU is able to continue functioning while the issues of ASEAN support and its location within the ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 45 ASEAN structure are being worked out. (RDMA, Freeland, U.S. Mission to ASEAN with the ASEAN Secretariat) Partnerships  Focus ARREST implementation on the ASEAN region, on the ASEAN-WEN/NICE-CG relationship, on increased work in Lao PDR and on initiating activities in Myanmar. Considering the limited funding and many tasks that need to be further strengthened to ensure the achievement of expected results during the program period, limit support to other regional groups (e.g., SA-WEN) to information sharing and lessons learned. (Freeland, RDMA, DoS)  Continue to reach out to key NGOs and civil society groups in an effort to build synergy and avoid duplication. Current work in China with Beijing Normal University and in Vietnam with MoNRE provide two models. (Freeland)  Increase efforts to build shared local ownership and ensure that ARREST is in fact Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking, not just in aspiration. For example, implement recommendations outlined above to facilitate regional partnerships and increase political and financial support for the ASEAN-WEN network. Additional suggestions have been provided in Annex VI-Looking Forward (2013-2016). (Freeland, RDMA, U.S. Mission to ASEAN, DoS) Learning  Continue learning exchanges. Work with the PCU and national WENs (task forces) to identify resources to support secondments at the PCU as a way of promoting regional ownership and political buy-in from the ASEAN-WEN network. (Freeland)  Review and recalibrate the ARREST plan for strengthening regional training and technical support programs in specialized areas, with a view toward maximizing partnerships, synergy with other related initiatives (e.g., TRACE ASEAN Wildlife Forensics Network) and leverage to combat wildlife trafficking. (Freeland, RDMA) 46 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report GENDER IN PROGRAM STRATEGY, DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION Findings Program Monitoring and Reporting In the ARREST PMP, the statement that relates to gender contends that “….the program will operate in close coordination with USAID and other ARREST partners through a field-driven approach that includes: demonstrative and proactive gender sensitivity.” 14 Yet, the PMP does not clarify how to implement the statement or which performance indicators will be used to analyze success. Additionally, insufficient attention has been paid to gender sensitivity in ARREST’s work plans, which include no mention of how gender equality will be mainstreamed throughout the program. During the period of 2011 to 2013, Freeland produced at least eight quarterly reports. Nevertheless, the Evaluation Team identified only one paragraph mentioning gender, in ARREST’s first quarterly report in 2011 (Q3): “Over the next quarter the ARREST program will endeavor to develop a performance indicator of gender measuring the differing ways the program impacts men and women. The program will evaluate the different roles women and men have within the targeted sectors, including law enforcement, consumption and learning networks. Gender-sensitive indicators will be sought that are inclusive of information collected from samples of beneficiaries using qualitative and quantitative methodologies or an examination of the project impact on national, regional or local policies, programs and practices that affect men and women differently.” Other quarterly reports discuss only the “number of people (male and female) receiving USG￾supported training in natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation” (Regional Mission Performance Indicator Values 2.3). This minimal attention indicates that Freeland’s reporting on gender in the ARREST program barely taps the surface of the issue, focusing only on numbers of males and females participating specifically in law enforcement training. Moreover, sex-disaggregated data is available only for law enforcement activities; such data have not yet been developed for the awareness-raising and learning partnership components of the ARREST program. Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising ARREST incorporates gender sensitivity in its demand reduction and awareness-raising program component in two primary ways. First, the iTHINK campaign involves influential male and female 14 Freeland: Innovating and Implementing Programs that Protect Asia’s Biodiversity Freeland, 2011, p. 5 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 47 key opinion leaders who voice their thoughts publically about wildlife crimes. iTHINK is an opportune vehicle to empower the public persona of Asian women as thought leaders. The campaign is discussed in further detail under Evaluation Question 1. Second, demand reduction surveys carried out in China, Thailand and Vietnam highlighted findings about how gender contributes to consumption of wildlife. Two campaign evaluation surveys carried out in partnership with Rapid Asia and Horizon Key Research in two different countries—with different cultures and traditions—provide different results. A campaign evaluation survey conducted in Hanoi, Vietnam discovered that consumers of bear bile have no distinct profile: male and female, young and old, professionals and students all consume bear bile (Rapid Asia, 2011, p. 3). On the other hand, a survey conducted in five big cities in China (Beijing, Shanghai, Nanning, Kunming and Guangzhou) showed that men consume more wildlife products compared to women. Male consumers are characterized by high incomes, college educations and ages between 18 and 29 years. In contrast, female consumers are in the middle income range, are at educational levels lower than college and are more than 30 years old (Freeland, 2011). Survey findings could be enhanced by mainstreaming gender into most of the survey topics. For example, the Vietnam bear bile survey report stated that “An alarming finding is the very strong indication that the consumption of bear bile is expected to grow over the near future. Most users and non-users claim they are at least likely to consume bear bile in the future.” With sex￾disaggregated data of the users and non-users, Freeland could identify more accurate target groups for awareness campaigns in order to build upon the surveys and use them to inform its demand-reduction activities. Many female consumers of wildlife products have indicated that they were not aware that the impacts on wildlife were so severe (Freeland, 2011). This finding is hopeful and suggests that effective interventions targeting women may reduce the number of wildlife crime cases. It is important to consider the culture of wildlife trade—and especially the value placed by buyers on certain wildlife products. For example, demand for products used in TCM is part of Chinese culture and values. Buying gifts for relatives, elders and business partners is a social norm in many Asian cultures. Freeland’s demand reduction activities could explore these cultural considerations, in combination with gender realities. Some key informants interviewed by the Evaluation Team spoke about the informal influence of Asian women, who are respected by families as providing medical care and setting behavioral norms. Freeland could consider the cultural role of women in reducing demand for wildlife. At the village level, wives and mothers of poachers could be a target group for messaging. Female relatives of illegal wildlife tycoons could also be considered. 48 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Law Enforcement Capacity Building Table 3 presents the number of participants disaggregated by sex who participated in ARREST law enforcement workshops, trainings and capacity-building activities during the period of 2011 to 2013. The table reflects 1,476 participants: 94.5 percent male and 5.5 percent female.15 During the ARREST program period thus far, the gender gap for participation in capacity￾building activities is significant. Males highly outnumbered females in nearly every training held by ARREST. The one exception was the Seminar on Green Courts conducted in Malaysia in March 2013, where 45 percent of participants were female judges and judicial officials from ASEAN member states. This event highlighted environmental laws in relation to wildlife trafficking. Table 3: Male and Female Beneficiaries of ARREST Program Training/Workshops Year Number of Quarterly Reports Male Beneficiaries Female Beneficiaries Total 2011 2 48 1 49 2012 4 762 47 809 2013 2 584 34 16 618 TOTAL 1,394 82 1,476 Freeland’s reporting illustrates a very low participation rate of women in capacity-building events. In part, the numbers are reflective of a comparatively low participation rate of women as forest rangers in the law enforcement sector—as reported by a number of key informants during the Evaluation Team’s fieldwork. A number of interrelated cultural, socioeconomic and institutional factors are linked to the differences between opportunities for men and women in the forestry sector: the sense that law enforcement is “a man’s world,” cultural perceptions about societal roles for women, and a lack of understanding that men and women can complement 15 Data included in Table 3 was self-reported by Freeland in quarterly reports. Note that some individuals may have been counted more than once if they attended more than one training. Regardless, the gender gap is evident. 16 This statistic includes 21 female judges and judicial officials who attended the Seminar on Green Courts. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 49 each other with their different abilities and qualities to address wildlife crime. According to key informants in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, most female rangers are limited to carrying out administrative work. However, law enforcement is not simply about arresting criminals. Women play important roles and provide significant contributions in many areas—as customs officials, quarantine officials, forensics staff, veterinarians, judges and prosecutors, ASEAN-WEN leaders and parliamentarians. Some NGOs have female directors and field staff who are successfully dealing with rebels, the military, illegal loggers and mining companies in order to promote conservation. The Evaluation Team met some of these influential women during fieldwork. Team members attended national WEN meetings in Indonesia and the Philippines; both meetings were chaired by female directors. The Evaluation Team met with female officials in the ASEAN Secretariat and AIPA who continually work to address wildlife crime issues and both emphasized the importance of sensitizing ASEAN Members of Parliament to wildlife trafficking facts and figures. The Team spoke with a female journalist who covers wildlife trafficking issues on a regular basis and seeks to develop an initiative to provide funding for forest rangers. Finally, team members interviewed a number of female staff at IFAW, which is led by a woman who has performed great innovations to reduce wildlife consumption in China. Conclusions  Program Monitoring and Reporting: Program documents reviewed by the Evaluation Team demonstrate that Freeland’s monitoring and reporting do not adequately track the different roles and/or contributions of men and women in the ARREST program components. Quarterly reports focus only on the number of male and female participants in law enforcement capacity-building activities. Program documents do not reflect any analysis of the impact of the ARREST program on policies and practices that may affect men and women differently. Statements about the intention to monitor these areas are included in the PMP and one quarterly report; but follow-up is limited, and neither of two work plans addresses gender.  Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising: Opportunities exist for Freeland to refine its demand-reduction surveys to gather information about gender-specific knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to wildlife consumption. Such data would enable Freeland to identify target groups and tailor messages accordingly for public-awareness campaigns.  Law Enforcement Capacity Building: Freeland’s activities under this program component have, so far, primarily benefitted males who constitute 95 percent of participant statistics. Given the disparities in law enforcement roles for men and women, Freeland’s program documents do not provide satisfactory, comprehensive explanations of how Freeland ensures that men and women have equal opportunity in terms of access, participation and benefits from the ARREST program. In addition, Freeland’s current training approach focuses mainly on law enforcement—how to arrest—and does not include preemptive, preventive or judiciary aspects where women can play a more prominent role. 50 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Recommendations  Consult with a gender specialist to identify opportunities to approach demand reduction and law enforcement capacity building in a more holistic manner that addresses the different roles of men and women in both sustaining and combating wildlife trafficking as appropriate. To understand gender only from the USAID Gender Guidelines is not sufficient. A gender specialist could be hired, on a consultative basis, to develop and mainstream gender sensitivity into each ARREST program component. (Freeland, Implementing Partners, USAID/RDMA Gender Advisor)  Articulate in program design and reporting documents how Freeland seeks to ensure that men and women have equal access to and gain equal benefits from activities related to all three ARREST program components. Develop performance indicators to track the impact of ARREST program components on men and women. Most importantly, clarification is needed on how the ARREST program will increase the participation of women and ensure that its activities benefit both men and women. (Freeland)  Include gender analysis of wildlife trafficking in the ARREST work plan, and implement actions to address issues identified by the analysis. As an organization, it is important for Freeland to identify gender focal points that will guarantee that the ARREST program approach is gender-sensitive—in design, implementation, monitoring and reporting. Freeland could share and discuss its gender-analysis findings with other NGOs and donors to promote women’s participation in combating wildlife crime. (Freeland)  Build upon demand-reduction surveys by developing advocacy materials that highlight gender issues and behaviors related to wildlife trafficking. Consider targeting iTHINK campaign messages to men or women specifically, utilizing tailored approaches based upon their knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. (Freeland)  Include more women in ARREST activities that promote law enforcement capacity building to combat wildlife crime. Facilitate the involvement of more female forest rangers and sea guards, customs officials at airports and sea ports, forensics and quarantine officers, judges and prosecutors, wildlife law analysts, intelligence agents and parliamentarians—when necessary, requiring governments to nominate eligible male and female candidates for training and capacity building. (Freeland) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 51 ANNEXES 52 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ASIA’S REGIONAL RESPONSE TO ENDANGERED SPECIES TRAFFICKING (ARREST) I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A) Identifying Information 1. Program: Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) 2. Award Number: CA-AID-486-A-11-00006 3. Award Dates: 4/1/2011 – 3/31/2016 4. Funding: $7,995,213 5: Implementer: FREELAND Foundation 6: AOR/Alternate AOR: Danielle Tedesco/Suphasuk Pradubsuk The Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) project is implemented by the FREELAND Foundation (henceforth “FREELAND”) and a wide variety of NGO, US Government (USG) and intergovernmental partners. A five-year cooperative agreement was awarded on April 1, 2011 to FREELAND, who has committed to a nearly 50 percent cost share, bringing the total value of the program to $11,985,325 over five years. B) Development Context 1. Background and USAID’s Response Markets for traditional medicine, wild animal meat, exotic pets, and luxury goods drive an illegal trade in threatened and endangered wildlife. Growing affluence in Asia has increased demand for these goods, exacerbating pressure on species whose exploitation has been unsustainable for decades. Some experts estimate the value of the illegal wildlife trade at US $10-20 billion annually, approaching the scale of trafficking in drugs or arms. 17 17 Wyler, L.S., Sheikh, P.A. (2008) International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and U.S. Policy. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington DC, 22 Aug 2008 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 53 Wildlife trafficking is now recognized as a critical and immediate threat to the region’s biodiversity, security, human health and well-being. Unsustainable exploitation of terrestrial and marine wildlife, as well as logging for prized timber, has made many species locally or functionally extinct, disturbing ecosystems that underpin fresh water supply, food production and the resilience of human and biological communities throughout Asia. Trafficking in threatened and endangered species is also a regional security concern, as well as a national security interest for the United States, because of the involvement of heavily armed poachers in source countries, the sale of ivory and tropical hardwoods to finance non-state militias, and the participation of organized criminal networks along the supply chain. The unregulated nature of the trade and conditions in wildlife markets facilitate the emergence and transmission of new diseases, such as SARS and Avian Influenza, with major health and economic impacts. The illegal wildlife trade affects all Asian countries, but biodiversity rich Indonesia, Malaysia and Burma are particularly targeted as sources for wildlife. Asia also serves as a conduit for wildlife products such as ivory and timber from as far away as Africa and Latin America as a result of globalization and increased regional trade integration. A host of factors including porous borders, the use of cell phones and the internet, better transportation infrastructure, weak law enforcement, lack of capacity and political will, and widespread corruption have made Asia a global hotspot for this growing illegal trade. Much of the international and regional trade in threatened and endangered wildlife is prohibited or regulated under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), reflected in national laws. Even so, a significant number of endangered species in the region are consumed and traded. For example, despite a complete ban on its cross-border trade in Southeast Asia, investigators believe at least one metric ton of endangered pangolins (scaly anteaters native to parts of Asia and Africa) are trafficked across borders every day. Ivory, rhino horn, skins and derivatives of tigers and leopards, live reptiles and birds, and illegally harvested timber all continue to be widely traded. In response, USAID’s Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) supported a pioneering effort by member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to address wildlife trafficking through a regional Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN). The ASEAN-WEN Support Program, implemented from 2005 to 2010 by NGOs (WildAid, FREELAND and TRAFFIC) in collaboration with U.S. Government entities such as the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice, facilitated establishment of the regional WEN consisting of a secretariat (program coordination unit, PCU) and interagency national task forces in ASEAN member countries. Training and capacity building alongside mechanisms for information sharing across countries strengthened law enforcement and investigative capacities and led to increased confiscations and arrests. For example, in 2009, Southeast Asian authorities applying USAID-supported training and networking undertook more than 85 wildlife law enforcement actions resulting in more than 140 arrests and seizures of wildlife contraband with an estimated black market value of over US $41 million. Many ASEAN￾WEN activities (e.g., annual meetings and in-country training) were funded by member governments, indicating increased local ownership of the network. 54 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Building on the ASEAN-WEN Support Program success, USAID/RDMA funded the five-year ARREST program in 2011. The ARREST Program promotes a three-pronged approach to curb wildlife trafficking through:  Reduction in consumption of endangered species in key markets in Asia by reducing consumer demand.  Reduction in poaching and trafficking of endangered species across Asia by strengthening law enforcement capacity.  Continuation and sustainability of these positive trends beyond the life of this program by strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships. Support for ASEAN and national WENs continues under ARREST, but with greater emphasis on strengthening information exchange and learning across networks, sharing the WEN model in new countries inside and outside the region, and making ASEAN-WEN operations institutionalized and financially sustainable. Law enforcement capacity building continues, but with new approaches designed to improve the application of training once trainees return back to protected areas and urban markets, the frontlines of poaching and trafficking. Finally, while public awareness was a minor component of the ASEAN-WEN Support Program, under ARREST this has matured into an explicit objective to reduce demand for illegal wildlife in Southeast Asia. The ARREST approach is expected to substantially curb wildlife trafficking while putting in place the capacity and structures for sustained effort once the program ends in 2016 (see section C: Approach and Intended Results, below) 2. Target Areas and Groups ARREST supports work in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam (see ASEAN-WEN Map below). Currently Burma is not included in ASEAN-WEN, however given recent political developments its status may change before the program finalizes. Institutions in Singapore also play a role. Within Asia, actions are targeted toward priority conservation landscapes, identified tiger range areas, and key wildlife source sites and regions where demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products is high. Demand reduction efforts are initially focused on key illegal wildlife transit and consumer countries - Thailand, Vietnam and China. ARREST focuses organizational strengthening on the ASEAN-WEN PCU, national WENs, and regional centers of excellence in specific areas, such as wildlife crime forensics in Malaysia and legal expertise in Singapore. Law enforcement training is directed at: protected area rangers and managers; law enforcement personnel of the police, airport and border customs authorities; and judges. Learning exchanges among countries and emerging WENs of South Asia, Africa and Latin America are supported according to opportunity and demand. Where funding allows, ARREST provides targeted technical support to countries in South Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal) in order to strengthen South Asia-WEN and address wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 55 56 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report C) Approach and Intended Results ARREST advances its three-pronged approach to combating illegal wildlife trade, which is currently a low-risk, high-reward criminal activity. The law enforcement strengthening component makes wildlife trafficking high-risk, by increasing the likelihood that criminals are caught, charged with a crime, found guilty, and subject to substantial fines and/or prison sentences. The demand reduction component reduces the rewards of wildlife trafficking by suppressing interest in and therefore the price of wildlife products. The third component, strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships, improves coordination across the region, advances the WEN model in other regions, and promotes the adoption and enforcement of strong national level policies, laws and regulation for improved natural resource governance. Together, these three areas of focus are expected to conserve biodiversity by substantially and permanently reducing regional wildlife trafficking, and to avoid merely shifting it to states with weak laws or enforcement. The ARREST program results framework (Figure 1) illustrates this development hypothesis and informs the ARREST performance management plan. D) Implementation ARREST aims to activate the full potential and sustainability of the ASEAN-WEN through unique partnerships, innovative approaches, and leveraging of both technical and financial resources. To implement ARREST, principle partner FREELAND has assembled an alliance of organizations experienced in effective and innovative law enforcement and communications initiatives. Some highlights of the ARREST major activities to date, organized by program objective, include: 1. Strengthening Law Enforcement Capacity  Institutionalizing a “Train-the-Trainers (ToT)” approach and promoting engagement of local/regional training institutions in curriculum development and organization of trainings courses.  Improving region-wide enforcement performance through a new “Task Force Twinning” program that promotes national tasks force cross-learning exchange visits.  Establishing Regional “Centers of Excellence” that model best practices in marine enforcement, anti-illegal logging, forensics, investigations, law, and protected area management and dramatically expand capacity building. 2. Reducing Consumer Demand  Launching consumer campaigns that reduce consumption of endangered species in major markets and raise political awareness and support.  Broadcasting a new global TV series focusing on Asia’s efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, featuring USAID-trained Asian environmental heroes. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 57 Figure 1. ARREST Results Framework (Source: ARREST Performance Management Plan FY11-FY15) 58 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 3. Strengthening and Sustaining Regional Learning Networks and Partnerships  Assisting ASEAN-WEN PCU to achieve official endorsement and commitment of “ASEAN￾WEN Sustainability Plan.”  Engaging agencies outside the wildlife and forestry community to join the fight against wildlife crime through networking, information and best practice sharing among law enforcement agencies with the capabilities to tackle wildlife crime. Sustaining law enforcement through new regulations that channel financial penalties back into wildlife enforcement task force operations.  Establishing a data collection and analysis program that measures the effectiveness of enforcement training, and help guide planning for future trainings, and inform enforcement related policy developments. Implementation methods and partners are thoroughly detailed in the cooperative agreement, annual work plans and annual reports. E) Existing Data A variety of documents and datasets are already available will be made available upon award:  Mid-term Program Assessment of the ASEAN-WEN Support Program (April 2008)  ARREST Program Description  Annual work plans  FY11-FY15 Performance Management Plan (PMP)  Demand survey reports of wildlife demand in select countries  Quarterly reports  Law enforcement training evaluation forms and reports  Database of media coverage of wildlife trafficking in the region (maintained by FREELAND)  Collated data on enforcement actions in the region, vetted by national governments (maintained by ASEAN-WEN PCU) In addition to the documents listed above, databases and reports from ASEAN countries may be informative, as well as sector assessments and other publications by the TRAFFIC wildlife monitoring network, other NGOs, and the U.S. Congressional Research Service (2008 Assessment). II. EVALUATION RATIONALE A) Evaluation Purpose and Objectives The Contractor must achieve the following three main objectives in conducting the mid-term performance evaluation of the ARREST program: 1) Assess progress to date towards agreed program objectives and under each of the intermediate results; ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 59 2) Identify implementation challenges and any corrective actions/areas for improvement related to program management and achievement of expected results for the duration of the program period; and 3) Recommend specific opportunities to enhance regional level impact, further strengthen the regional WEN and sustainability approach. This evaluation must evaluate ARREST program results, management and sustainability. It will principally be used to improve performance of the second half of the program, but is also expected to be of use to donors, NGOs and nations working to address wildlife crime and/or advance WENs inside and outside of Southeast Asia. The evaluation may also begin to highlight innovation and best practices specific to law enforcement capacity building and consumer demand reduction campaigns. B) Audience and Intended Uses USAID/RDMA, NGO and USG program partners, and most importantly, participating ASEAN￾WEN government bodies, are the primary evaluation stakeholders. The U.S. Department of State has actively supported WEN in several regions and will take a particular interest in any lessons for WEN success. USAID/RDMA will disseminate evaluation findings to missions with similar programs and with USAID’s E3 Bureau for sharing in other regions. NGOs and multilateral organizations operating in this sphere, such as TRAFFIC, WWF, WCS, CITES, and INTERPOL, would also benefit from reviewing evaluation results. This table summarizes how these audiences will or could use the evaluation results. Evaluation Task Principle Information Users Assess progress to date towards agreed program objectives and intermediate results. USAID/RDMA; implementing partners Identify implementation challenges, corrective actions needed and/or areas for improvement related to project management and progress towards achieving expected results for the duration of the project period. USAID/RDMA; implementing partners; existing and developing WENs Recommend specific opportunities to enhance regional level impact and further strengthen the regional WEN approach. USAID, implementing partners; U.S. Department of State; existing and developing WENs; NGOs and multilaterals C) Evaluation Questions The Contractor must focus on answering the following three priority and strategic evaluation questions according to each major ARREST program component. These questions will also help to assess the effectiveness in program management, regional-level impact of the ARREST 60 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Program, sustainability of the regional WEN approach, as well as identify opportunities to examine gender equality and advance USAID Forward reforms. 1. To what extent have demand reduction and awareness raising activities been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? 2. To what extent has law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized and improved anti-poaching and anti-trafficking efforts within ASEAN-WEN countries and regionally? 3. To what extent has the program met sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans regarding: a. ASEAN-WEN and PCU sustainable financing; b. Regional and trans-regional partnerships (e.g., between ASEAN-WEN and INTERPOL, CITES, WCO, UNODC); c. Learning exchanges (e.g., training, special investigation groups (SIGs), information exchanges); and d. The establishment of regional centers of excellence. III. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A) Evaluation Design The Contractor must answer the three specific evaluation questions presented above in the mid￾term performance evaluation. The Contractor’s conceptual approach that will be used to answer these questions must focus on actual results and expected targets, key informant interviews, site visits, and consultations with relevant stakeholders. The Contractor’s evaluation team comprised of independent external consultants, with support from members of USAID and possibly other organizations, must examine the current and past performance of ARREST from the start of the agreement through the evaluation period. While the evaluation should address past performance, USAID is also interested in forward-looking recommendations for improving the second half of this program and informing the design of concurrent and future interventions related to wildlife trafficking and support to Wildlife Enforcement Networks. The program statement of work requires the evaluating consultants to gather information on the program, analyze that information, and provide answers to the key evaluation questions. Suggested areas to be more focused or expanded will be useful in order to achieve expected outcomes. The Contractor must also address gender implications as a way to promote gender equality in wildlife conservation and protection. The Contractor’s independent external consultants must work in conjunction with other team members to plan and implement the proposed evaluation. RDMA and the full evaluation team will need to be heavily involved with design, planning, and logistics, but to the Contractor must provide significant and overall leadership and direction, as well as having the final responsibility for the major evaluation duties and deliverables. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 61 B) Data Collection and Analysis Methods The Contractor’s team of independent external consultants, complemented by additional members from USAID and possibly other organizations, must evaluate this multi-faceted program over a period of 15 weeks and across a ten-country region. Data requirements, collection methods, and required analyses will be determined collaboratively with USAID/RDMA under the direction of the Contractor’s independent team leader (not affiliated with USAID or the program) to reduce bias and promote a high quality evaluation under the USAID Evaluation Policy. Consistent with ADS 203.3.1.6 guidance on evaluation methodologies, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in data collection and analysis must be employed by the Contractor in the process. A triangulation method should be applied by the Contractor to increase level of validity in data collection and processing of results. Details on final datasets, collection methods (including interview questions, questionnaire form and key informants to be interviewed), and analytical framework(s) will be approved by the TOCOR as part of initial work plan approval. Data is expected to be disaggregated by sex, target country, and regional/national. The Contractor must begin its data collection with a desk study of existing documents and information, followed by consultations with key stakeholders in Washington and ASEAN region to further refine the implementation approach. This will be followed by interviews of partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries in the program’s target countries, and potentially other countries as appropriate. Details on these illustrative approaches and the evaluation questions they are anticipated to help answer are provided in the table below. Data Collection and Analysis Methods Question(s) Answered Desk Study: Review documents and databases listed in section 1.E. above. Work with USAID/RDMA to acquire additional documents as needed, and prioritize primary data collection where gaps remain. 1, 2, 3 Also serves a planning role Internal Consultations: Meet or conference call with key stakeholders in Washington and Southeast Asia for recommendations on specific areas of consideration. These may include but are not limited to: (a) USAID/RDMA, Asia Bureau, E3 Bureau, relevant USAID bilateral missions; and (b) USG Federal Agency partner staff including the USFWS, USFS, DOJ and DOS. This is separate from the interview process by which data will be collected among some of the same stakeholders. 1, 2, 3 Also serves a planning role Survey: Develop an online questionnaires survey instrument in English that responds to the evaluation objectives. Distribute the survey widely (using email or Internet) for breadth and reach, especially to stakeholders South Asia and countries in Southeast Asia that will not be visited by evaluation team members. Respondents may include but are not limited to: (a) implementing partner headquarter and field staff; (b) ARREST sub-partners; (c) staff and implementing partners of USAID/RDMA and other operating units which have engaged or could engage with ARREST; (d) USG Federal Agency Partner staff including the USFWS, 1, 2, 3 62 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report USFS, DOJ and DOS; (e) staff of multilateral organizations such as CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC, WCO, and the World Bank; (e) cooperating country government staff, especially those involved in ASEAN-WEN, national WENs, regional centers of excellence, and ARREST-sponsored training; (f) international NGOs working to address wildlife crime such as TRAFFIC. The data will be collected and analyzed automatically by the online survey service provider, or analyzed by any other appropriate software such as SPSS or MS-Excel. The data should be summarized and presented in graphic, descriptive, table and/or numeric formats. Key Informant and Focus Group Interviews: In-person and phone interviews should be conducted based on an interview guide developed explicitly for this evaluation. Individuals and organizations in the ASEAN region and outside of It (especially SA-WEN region) should be prioritized based on mission and other stakeholder consultation, drawing from the types of stakeholder outlined above. The decision on whether to conduct an individual or group interview depends on a variety of factors including the type of questions and analyses planned, individual and cultural norms and preferences, and efficiency. The data will be analyzed by using transcription and/or coding methods as appropriate. 1, 2, 3 C) Methodological Strengths and Limitations Methods Strengths Limitations Desk Study  Provide valuable information on substantive issues and generate a list of questions including key stakeholders that can be used in other methods.  Help to focus efforts and prioritize issues and gaps  Time consuming  Depends on resource availability Consultations  Provide valuable information on substantive issues and generate a list of questions including key stakeholders that can be used in other methods.  Provide greater depth and insights and general surveys  Depends on availability of key stakeholders  Need to consider time zone difference. Survey  Cost and time effective  Can reach more respondents  Sample size and number of respondents may not be enough to statistically represent the whole population.  Limited reach if only conducted in English Key Informant Interviews  Potentially data rich, detailed answers  Might need to interview through interpreters (possible loss of meaning and data richness)  Might have informants’ bias Focus Group Interviews  Can generate broader ideas and responses.  Might need to conduct discussion through translators (possible loss of ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 63  Can include a greater number of participants in less time and result in rich discussion, if facilitated well meaning and data richness)  Some respondents may dominate in answering  Requires two interviewers IV. TEAM COMPOSITION The Contractor’s evaluation team will be comprised primarily of three (3) independent external consultants, as follows: 1) Team Leader (international consultant) 2) Assistant Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist (international or local consultant) 3) Evaluation Specialist/Administrative and Logistical Support (local consultant) The evaluation will be led by an independent consultant (referred to as “Team Leader”) and supported by subject matter experts (referred to as Evaluation Specialists) from the team leader’s home organization and/or local organizations. The independent external consultants must have strong and substantial experience in evaluating biodiversity and natural resources management, including environmental related law enforcement or environmental awareness campaign activities. The Team Leader will be responsible for the overall implementation of the evaluation and ensuring that all expected tasks and deliverables are achieved on time and of high quality. S/he must have significant professional experience coordinating similarly complex evaluations, and leading evaluation teams. The candidate must have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must be fluent in English and must have a Master’s level degree with at least 15 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant analytical field (e.g., wildlife/biodiversity conservation, natural resource management, or biology), although doctorate level credentials are preferred.. It is highly desirable for the Team Leader candidate to have direct knowledge and/or experience working with USAID rules, evaluation policy, regulations, and procedures, particularly requirements of USAID biodiversity programs. S/he will oversee the overall drafting of the evaluation framework, including methodology determinations; organization of calendar/travel/meetings; overseeing the desk study, interviews, and other data collection; and analyzing the data with input from team members and USAID/RDMA to draft the evaluation report. The Assistant Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist will support the team leader in the implementation of the evaluation. S/he should have significant professional experience implementing similarly complex evaluations involving multiple stakeholders. The candidate must have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must be fluent in English and should have a Master’s level degree with at least 10 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant analytical evaluation field (e.g., natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, wildlife management). It is highly desirable to have knowledge and/or experience working with USAID rules, regulations, and procedures, particularly requirements of USAID biodiversity conservation programs. S/he will contribute to the overall drafting of the 64 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report evaluation framework and participating in the desk study, interviews, and other data collection; and analyzing the data with input from team members and USAID/RDMA to draft the evaluation report. The Local Evaluation Specialist will provide additional technical support to the evaluation team as well as support administrative and logistical functions necessary to carry out the evaluation. S/he should be a national or local expert from the region, and have strong organizational skills. S/he should have strong English speaking skills and a Master’s level degree with at least 10 years of technical knowledge and experience in a relevant field (e.g., program management, project evaluation, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, wildlife management). S/he will be responsible for assisting in coordinating the desk study, interviews, and other data collection, and providing overall administrative and logistical support to the team (e.g., providing engagement letters to participants, scheduling interview meetings, etc.). If it is difficult to find team members who have both evaluation and technical skills/experience, then the Contractor may field a team composed of an experienced evaluator as team leader with technical experts on the team itself could be considered. The external consultants will be supervised by the TOCOR, while working closely with the ARREST’s project’s Agreement Officer Representative (AOR) to gain in-depth information of the program activities. The COR and/or alternate will provide strategic direction and guidance throughout the evaluation process, including the development of the work plan, any data collection tools, and evaluation report outline, approach, and content. The Contractor must field an evaluation team that provides complimentary skills and together possesses the technical, evaluation and managerial skills to submit high quality deliverables that meet the objectives of the task order without requiring significant revisions and substantive/significant input from the TOCOR and additional team members. In addition to the Contractor’s consultants, the evaluation team may be complemented by additional team members from USAID and other organizations as follows: 4) Law Enforcement Capacity Building Specialist (USFWS) 5) Program Development Specialist and/or Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (USAID/RDMA) 6) Media Campaign/Behavior Change Communications Specialist (USAID/E3) These team members will provide complementary technical assistance in their area of expertise and assist in the overall evaluation implementation, participating in consultations, and in helping draft the report. The exact number of participants will be confirmed with the evaluation team following award. It is expected that 2-3 additional team members will be able to participate for a period of 2-3 weeks each, and focus on conducting consultations and overall programmatic strategic review. All evaluation team members shall provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 65 V. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT The ARREST project supports efforts in at least ten countries, but the evaluation team is only anticipated to visit four or five of these, to be determined in consultation with USAID/RDMA. Thailand will certainly be one of them: Bangkok hosts the ASEAN-WEN PCU and USAID/RDMA; in addition, law enforcement training is conducted in a national park in the country. Other likely candidates are: Indonesia (hosts ASEAN secretariat, ICITAP program of DOJ, and a bilateral mission with program intersects with ARREST); China and Vietnam (both priorities for demand reduction efforts, with linkages to Africa); Laos (a key transit country), and Malaysia (major wildlife source country, supports regional forensic assessment and has a strong national wildlife law). Singapore is home to a university that may become a regional center of excellence in environmental law, and the Philippines has hosted marine law enforcement training. The Contractor’s evaluation team will receive support from USAID/RDMA in selecting priority organizations and places to visit during the evaluation, and in gaining required country clearance. The evaluation team is expected to schedule interviews or other modes of data collection with key stakeholders, though USAID and FREELAND can provide contact information. The Contractor’s evaluation team must make their own hotel, air travel, and local transportation arrangements in accordance with U.S. requirements for allowable carriers and per diems. Team members should have the necessary language skills for countries of focus, or engage local language interpreters to support interviews and reviews of local language documents and records. All evaluation team members are responsible for their own workspaces, computers, and travel arrangements. If possible, the evaluation will be timed to overlap with a planned ASEAN-WEN Annual Meeting expected to take place in May 2013 in Bangkok. There may be an opportunity to invite SA￾WEN members to that meeting. 66 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX II: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS INTERVIEW INSTRUMENTS INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINEE (Q2) Mid-term Performance Evaluation Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) Date: _______________________ Name: _______________________ Sex: Male Female Country: China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Vietnam Affiliation: Scope The subject of this evaluation is Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), a program implemented by the Freeland Foundation to collaborate with the ASEAN￾Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and other partners to curb illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. The primary objectives of the ARREST program include: 1) reducing consumer demand and enhancing awareness; 2) building law enforcement capacity; and 3) strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships to address wildlife trafficking. Purpose This independent, external evaluation is being conducted by Social Impact for the U.S. Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) in Bangkok. The purpose of the evaluation is to learn about progress to date and provide recommendations about potential improvements to strengthen U.S. Government (USG) support for programming in this area. Findings from the evaluation will be used by USAID and its USG partners, Freeland and its partners, and ASEAN-WEN governments. Participation You have been recommended as an individual/organization with knowledge of the ARREST program. We invite you to provide feedback about the program’s impact and recommendations for improvement. We will take notes during this discussion and share them with our evaluation team members. Your views will help to inform our findings and conclusions. However, your opinions will not be attributed to you by name in the evaluation report. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 67 Priority Interview Questions 1. What kinds of training have you received through the ARREST program? Prevention: Protected Area Enforcement and Management Detection: Nature Crime Investigation, Forensics, Border Inspection Prosecution: Judiciary Awareness and Enhancement of Laws 2. How were you selected to participate in the training? What were the procedures for participant selection? 3. Do your female colleagues attend ARREST training, provided that the topic is relevant to their duties? Yes No Not Applicable/Don’t Know Please discuss: 4. How would you rate the ARREST training in terms of providing you with the knowledge and skills to perform your duties in an effective manner? Very Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant Please describe: 5. Please provide an example of knowledge gained during ARREST training that was previously unknown or unfamiliar to you. 6. Please provide an example of how you applied or used skills gained from the training in your daily work. 7. Have your new skills contributed directly to reducing wildlife trafficking? Yes No If yes, please provide an example: 8. Have you shared ARREST training materials and knowledge with your colleagues and/or supervisor? Yes No If yes, please describe: 9. Does your agency provide its own training to staff using ARREST training materials? If yes, on which topics? 68 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 10. Do you have the tools to perform your duties (e.g., species identification manuals, procedural protocols, firearms, management skills, etc.)? Yes No If no, what additional tools and training do you require? 11. Are there other activities that you would like to conduct to protect wildlife but are not able to at the moment? Yes No What are the activities and what would be their value? What are the constraints that prevent you from conducting these activities now? What additional support do you need to conduct these activities? 12. Do you have any additional thoughts to share with us? Supplemental Interview Questions 13. Have you received formal training in CITES regulations (including permits) and in the identification of protected wildlife and/or their products? Yes No If yes, which organization conducted the training? Was it: On-the-job training or Classroom training or Workshop? 14. What are the protected species—either as specimens or products—that are most frequently encountered in your country/duty station now? 15. What is the primary country of origin for protected species that you regularly encounter? Are they Transited through your country or Consumed/used in your country? 16. How frequently are shipments seized? Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Other (specify) When did the last seizure take place, and what was it for? How did you handle the case? What happened to the species? What happened to the traffickers? ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 69 17. Have you noted any changes in the types of species or quantity of shipments that you encounter at your site since April 2011? Yes No If yes, please describe: 18. Which species have you seen less of in recent years, and which ones continue to be problematic? Please describe. 19. Can you identify any reasons for the changes that you observe? 70 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – MEDIA (Q1) Mid-term Performance Evaluation Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) Date: _____________________ Name: _____________________ Affiliation: Sex: Male Female Country: China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Vietnam Scope The subject of this evaluation is Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), a program implemented by the Freeland Foundation to collaborate with the ASEAN￾Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and other partners to curb illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. The primary objectives of the ARREST program include: 1) reducing consumer demand and enhancing awareness; 2) building law enforcement capacity; and 3) strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships to address wildlife trafficking. Purpose This independent, external evaluation is being conducted by Social Impact for the U.S. Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) in Bangkok. The purpose of the evaluation is to learn about progress to date and provide recommendations about potential improvements to strengthen U.S. Government (USG) support for programming in this area. Findings from the evaluation will be used by USAID and its USG partners, Freeland and its partners, and ASEAN-WEN governments. Participation You have been recommended as an individual/organization with knowledge of the ARREST program. We invite you to provide feedback about the program’s impact and recommendations for improvement. We will take notes during this discussion and share them with our evaluation team members. Your views will help to inform our findings and conclusions. However, your opinions will not be attributed to you by name in the evaluation report. Interview Questions 1. How familiar are you with the ARREST program and the Freeland Foundation? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 71 If familiar, how were you introduced to ARREST and Freeland? 2. Have you collaborated with Freeland through the ARREST program (since 2011) to conduct demand reduction and awareness-raising activities? Yes No If yes, please describe the nature and approach: If yes, please indicate the target audience: General Public Men Women Youth Travelers Government Officials Civil Society Private Sector Other (specify) 3. Please describe your understanding of the illegal wildlife demand reduction strategy used by the ARREST program. Are awareness-raising activities expected to result in behavior change? If yes, how so? 4. To what extent have awareness-raising activities conducted by ARREST been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? Highly Successful Successful Too Early to Know Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: If it’s too early to know, what is the potential for success? Why, or why not? If ARREST activities have been successful, how were changes in demand for illegal wildlife observed or quantified? 5. Do you think that media attention about illegal wildlife trafficking has increased as a result of the ARREST program? If yes, please describe. 6. To your knowledge, was a gender-sensitive approach used to design, implement, and assess the impact of ARREST’s awareness-raising activities? Yes No Don’t Know Please describe: 7. Do you have recommendations for Freeland to increase the reach and/or impact of its awareness-raising activities? Would you suggest new methods, audiences, technological tools, etc.? 72 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 8. Are there other groups or institutions—national, regional, multilateral, private sector, civil society—that should be included in future ARREST activities? If yes, which groups or institutions? Why and how should they be involved? 9. Do you have recommendations for USAID to address wildlife trafficking challenges through 2016 and beyond? If yes, please describe. 10. Do you have any additional thoughts to share with us? ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 73 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – EXTERNAL ACTORS Mid-term Performance Evaluation Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) Date: ______________________________________ Name: ______________________________________ Sex: Male Female Country: China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Vietnam Affiliation: Multilateral Civil Society iNGO Private Sector Scope The subject of this evaluation is Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), a program implemented by the Freeland Foundation to collaborate with the ASEAN￾Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and other partners to curb illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. The primary objectives of the ARREST program include: 1) reducing consumer demand and enhancing awareness; 2) building law enforcement capacity; and 3) strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships to address wildlife trafficking. Purpose This independent, external evaluation is being conducted by Social Impact for the U.S. Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) in Bangkok. The purpose of the evaluation is to learn about progress to date and provide recommendations about potential improvements to strengthen U.S. Government (USG) support for programming in this area. Findings from the evaluation will be used by USAID and its USG partners, Freeland and its partners, and ASEAN-WEN governments. Participation You have been recommended as an individual/organization with knowledge of the ARREST program. We invite you to provide feedback about the program’s impact and recommendations for improvement. We will take notes during this discussion and share them with our evaluation team members. Your views will help to inform our findings and conclusions. However, your opinions will not be attributed to you by name in the evaluation report. Interview Questions 1. What do you identify as key challenges to reducing wildlife trafficking in this country? In Southeast Asia? 74 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2. Please tell us about your organization and the activities it conducts to address these challenges. 3. How familiar are you with the ARREST program and the Freeland Foundation? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar If familiar, how were you introduced to ARREST and Freeland? 4. Have you collaborated with the ARREST program in the following areas? Increasing awareness/reducing consumption Strengthening law enforcement capacity Supporting learning networks and partnerships If yes, please describe: If yes, how would you rate the overall quality of your collaboration with Freeland? Excellent Satisfactory Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: 5. How would you rate the effectiveness of the ARREST program in reducing wildlife trafficking through the following activities? [1-5 Scale: 5 = Excellent, 1 = Poor] a. Increasing Awareness/Reducing Consumption (Q1) 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know Please describe your reason for this rating: To what extent have awareness-raising activities conducted by ARREST been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? (Q1) Highly Successful Successful Too Early to Know Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: If it’s too early to know, what is the potential for success? Why, or why not? (Q1) b. Strengthening Law Enforcement Capacity (Q2) 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know Please describe your reason for this rating: ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 75 To what extent has ARREST law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized by ASEAN member states? (Q2) Excellent Progress Good Progress Too Early to Know Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: If it’s too early to know, what is the potential for ASEAN member states to institutionalize law enforcement capacity building activities as a result of ARREST interventions? Why, or why not? (Q2) To what extent has ARREST training improved anti-poaching and anti￾trafficking efforts? (Q2) How? Please describe: What do you consider to be an appropriate role and effective level of NGO involvement in law enforcement capacity building and operations? c. Supporting Learning Networks and Partnerships (Q3) 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know Please describe your reason for this rating: How familiar are you with the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN)? (Q3) Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar If familiar, how were you introduced to the WEN? Have you collaborated with the ASEAN-WEN (national or regional) in the areas below? Increasing awareness/reducing consumption Strengthening law enforcement capacity Supporting learning networks and partnerships If yes, please describe: How would you assess the capacity of the ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit (PCU) to strengthen the WEN in your country? (Q3) Please describe: How would you describe the effectiveness of the ASEAN-WEN PCU in building and strengthening the regional ASEAN-WEN learning network? (Q3) 76 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Please describe: 6. Could you suggest any best practices that Freeland and/or ASEAN-WEN might pursue to ensure a gender-responsive approach to wildlife trafficking programs? If yes, please discuss: 7. What is missing in the ARREST program approach that would reduce wildlife trafficking? What areas for improvement or opportunities to achieve greater impact would you identify for the ARREST program (in priority order)? 8. Could you identify any programs implemented by your organization or other organizations that may have synergies with ARREST program objectives? Preventing emerging infectious diseases/pandemic threats Economic growth and trade Democracy and governance Combatting transnational crime Promoting women’s empowerment Please elaborate: 9. Are you interested in collaboration with ARREST in any of these areas? If yes, how? 10. Are there other groups or institutions—national, regional, multilateral, private sector, civil society—that should be included in future ARREST activities? If yes, which groups or institutions? Why and how should they be involved? (Q3) 11. Can you identify any opportunities for the ARREST program to expand its partnerships with China, South Asia, or Africa? Please describe. (Q3) 12. Do you have recommendations for USAID to address wildlife trafficking challenges through 2016 and beyond? If yes, please describe. 13. Do you have any additional thoughts to share with us? ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 77 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – NATIONAL WILDLIFE ENFORCEMENT NETWORKS Mid-term Performance Evaluation Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) Date: _____________________________ Name: _____________________________ Sex: Male Female Country: China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Vietnam Scope The subject of this evaluation is Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), a program implemented by the Freeland Foundation to collaborate with the ASEAN￾Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and other partners to curb illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. The primary objectives of the ARREST program include: 1) reducing consumer demand and enhancing awareness; 2) building law enforcement capacity; and 3) strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships to address wildlife trafficking. Purpose This independent, external evaluation is being conducted by Social Impact for the U.S. Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) in Bangkok. The purpose of the evaluation is to learn about progress to date and provide recommendations about potential improvements to strengthen U.S. Government (USG) support for programming in this area. Findings from the evaluation will be used by USAID and its USG partners, Freeland and its partners, and ASEAN-WEN governments. Participation You have been recommended as an individual/organization with knowledge of the ARREST program. We invite you to provide feedback about the program’s impact and recommendations for improvement. We will take notes during this discussion and share them with our evaluation team members. Your views will help to inform our findings and conclusions. However, your opinions will not be attributed to you by name in the evaluation report. Interview Questions 1. When and how was your national Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) established? 2. Which agencies, ministries, offices, etc. are members? Who chairs or convenes the WEN? 3. Who are your primary partners outside the government? (Q3) 78 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit (PCU) Freeland NGOs Other Describe your relationships with your partners. 4. What is the funding strategy for the WEN in your country? (Q3) 5. What are the top challenges for reducing wildlife trafficking in your country? 6. What are the WEN’s top successes in reducing wildlife trafficking in your country? 7. How familiar are you with the ARREST program implemented by Freeland since 2011? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar If familiar, how were you introduced to ARREST and Freeland? 8. What kinds of activities has ARREST supported in your country? Training Special Investigation Groups (SIGs) Awareness Campaigns National Coordination ASEAN Regional Coordination Other (specify) 9. How would you rate the quality of these activities? [1-5 Scale: 5 = Excellent, 1 = Poor] Training: 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know (Q2) SIGs: 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know (Q3) Awareness Campaigns: 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know (Q1) National Coordination: 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know (Q1) ASEAN Regional Coordination: 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know Other: 5 4 3 2 1 Not Applicable/Don’t Know ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 79 10. How effective is ARREST training in building the capacity of law enforcement staff to reduce wildlife crime? (Q2) Very Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective Please describe: 11. Do you think ARREST maintains an appropriate balance between training managers and training front-line staff? (Q2) Yes No Why or why not? 12. To what extent has ARREST been effective in strengthening legislation and regulations related to illegal wildlife trafficking? (Q2) Very Effective Somewhat Effective Not Effective Please describe: 13. Has ARREST helped your country to prosecute wildlife crime? If yes, please describe. (Q2) 14. Has ARREST expanded the network of cooperating countries in the region to improve collaboration and reduce wildlife crime across borders? (Q3) Yes No If yes, please describe: 15. Does your country currently support the ASEAN-WEN PCU in any of the following ways? (Q5) Financial Contribution Secondments Meeting Venue Virtual Technical Support Other (specify) 16. Do you think that the ASEAN Secretariat provides adequate support and guidance to the ASEAN-WEN PCU? (Q3) Yes No Don’t Know Please describe: 17. How would you describe the capacity of the ASEAN-WEN PCU to strengthen your national WEN? (Q3) 80 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 18. How would you describe the effectiveness of the ASEAN-WEN PCU in building and strengthening the regional ASEAN-WEN network? (Q3) 19. Are there other ASEAN entities, private companies, or civil society organizations (e.g., ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, ASEAN committees, advocacy groups, etc.) that should be included in future ARREST activities? If yes, which ones, why, and how? (Q3) 20. Can you identify any opportunities for the ARREST program to expand its partnerships beyond the ASEAN region (e.g., China, South Asia, or Africa)? Please describe. (Q3) 21. Have you seen any Freeland anti-wildlife trafficking campaign materials in your country? (Q1) Yes No If yes, please describe the type of message conveyed and the nature and location of the campaign materials. Do you believe that Freeland campaign materials are effective in conveying important messages about illegal wildlife trafficking to the public? (Q1) Yes No Why or why not? 22. Do you have recommendations for USAID to address wildlife trafficking during the remaining years of the ARREST program (through 2016) and beyond? Please describe. 23. Do you have any additional thoughts to share with us? ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 81 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL – DONOR/U.S. GOVERNMENT PARTNER Mid-term Performance Evaluation Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) Date: ________________________________ Name: ________________________________ Sex: Male Female Country: China Indonesia Philippines Thailand Vietnam Affiliation: USAID DoS ARREST Partner (USFWS, USFS, DOJ/ICITAP) Other Scope The subject of this evaluation is Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), a program implemented by the Freeland Foundation to collaborate with the ASEAN￾Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and other partners to curb illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. The primary objectives of the ARREST program include: 1) reducing consumer demand and enhancing awareness; 2) building law enforcement capacity; and 3) strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships to address wildlife trafficking. Purpose This independent, external evaluation is being conducted by Social Impact for the U.S. Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) in Bangkok. The purpose of the evaluation is to learn about progress to date and provide recommendations about potential improvements to strengthen U.S. Government (USG) support for programming in this area. Findings from the evaluation will be used by USAID and its USG partners, Freeland and its partners, and ASEAN-WEN governments. Participation You have been recommended as an individual/organization with knowledge of the ARREST program. We invite you to provide feedback about the program’s impact and recommendations for improvement. We will take notes during this discussion and share them with our evaluation team members. Your views will help to inform our findings and conclusions. However, your opinions will not be attributed to you by name in the evaluation report. Interview Questions 1. How familiar are you with the ARREST program? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar 82 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2. Has your office worked directly with Freeland as part of the ARREST program? If yes, please describe: If yes, how would you rate the overall quality of your collaboration with Freeland? Excellent Satisfactory Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: 3. Have you worked with ARREST on reducing consumer demand for wildlife products? (Q1) Yes No To what extent have awareness-raising activities conducted by ARREST been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products? (Q1) Highly Successful Successful Too Early to Know Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: If it’s too early to know, what is the potential for success? Why, or why not? (Q1) 4. Have you worked with ARREST on strengthening law enforcement capacity? (Q2) Yes No To what extent has ARREST law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized by ASEAN member states? (Q2) Excellent Progress Good Progress Too Early to Know Needs Improvement Please describe, and identify possible improvements if relevant: If it’s too early to know, what is the potential for ASEAN member states to institutionalize law enforcement capacity building activities as a result of ARREST interventions? Why, or why not? (Q2) To what extent has ARREST training improved anti-poaching and anti-trafficking efforts? How? Please describe: (Q2) 5. What do you consider to be an appropriate role and effective level of NGO involvement in law enforcement capacity building and operations? (Q2) 6. Have you worked with ARREST on strengthening and sustaining regional learning networks and partnerships? If yes, with which of the following? (Q3) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 83 ASEAN Program Coordination Unit (PCU) and Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) How would you assess the capacity of the ASEAN-WEN PCU to strengthen the WEN in your country? Please describe: (Q3) How would you describe the effectiveness of the ASEAN-WEN PCU in building and strengthening the regional ASEAN-WEN learning network? (Q3) Please describe: Regional and Trans-Regional Partnerships (e.g., between ASEAN-WEN and INTERPOL, CITES, WCO, UNODC), including private sector partnerships If relevant, please specify: What has been the role of ARREST resources in initiating and maintaining these partnerships? (Q3) How likely are the partnerships to be maintained in the absence of ARREST resources? High Medium Low Don’t Know Learning Exchanges (e.g., training, special investigation groups (SIGs), information exchanges, secondments) Please describe any examples of the impact of these initiatives in your country. (Q3) Regional Centers of Excellence (ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity; specialized training on forensics, marine and terrestrial law enforcement, and wildlife law) How would you prioritize the importance of these subject areas in your country? (Q3) 7. Are there other groups or institutions—national, regional, multilateral, private sector, civil society—that should be included in future ARREST activities? If yes, which groups or institutions? Why and how should they be involved? (Q3) 8. Can you identify any opportunities for the ARREST program to expand its partnerships with China, South Asia, or Africa? Please describe. (Q3) 9. Is ARREST applying appropriate emphasis and resources to its program areas (reducing demand, law enforcement capacity, and learning networks/partnerships) in pursuing its goal of curbing illegal wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia? Why, or why not? 10. Has gender been adequately factored into ARREST program activities? 84 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Yes No Not Applicable Don’t Know Please discuss: 11. What is missing in the ARREST program approach that would reduce wildlife trafficking? What areas for improvement or opportunities to achieve greater impact would you identify for the ARREST program (in priority order)? 12. Could you identify any programs implemented or supported by your office that may have synergies with ARREST program objectives? Preventing emerging infectious diseases/pandemic threats Economic growth and trade Democracy and governance Combatting transnational crime Promoting women’s empowerment Please elaborate: 13. Given the visibility of illegal wildlife trafficking within the USG (e.g., July 1 Executive Order), will your office be involved in wildlife trafficking issues during the remaining years of the ARREST program (through 2016) and beyond? 14. If yes, please describe: 15. Do you have any additional thoughts to share with us? ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 85 SURVEY PROTOCOL ARREST EVALUATION – SURVEY PROTOCOL [Survey Monkey] [Email to Participants] Dear ____________: I am writing on behalf of the team evaluating Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST), a program implemented by the Freeland Foundation since April 2011 to collaborate with the ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) and other partners to address illegal wildlife trade in the region. The evaluation is being conducted by Social Impact for the U.S. Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA) in Bangkok. You have been identified as a key participant in this work, and we invite you to provide valuable insight about ASEAN-WEN and its activities to address endangered species trafficking. We kindly request that you complete a brief survey at the following address: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ARREST_Survey We recognize that your time is valuable, so we expect the survey will take less than 15 minutes. Your answers will be kept confidential. We very much appreciate your help! Sincerely, Social Impact Evaluation Team www.socialimpact.com [Message on Landing Page] PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY With support from USAID, the Freeland Foundation and its partners have implemented Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) since April 2011 to address illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. Social Impact is conducting an evaluation for USAID to understand how to improve the ARREST program. We invite you to provide valuable insight about ASEAN-WEN and its activities to address endangered species trafficking. This survey can be completed in 15 minutes. 86 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This survey guarantees respondent confidentiality and your participation in this survey is voluntary. All data will be used in an aggregate form that will make it impossible to determine the identity of the individual responses. Access to raw data will be tightly restricted to only those individuals directly involved in data analysis. [Survey] BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. In which country do you primarily work?  Brunei Darussalam  Cambodia  Indonesia  Lao PDR  Malaysia  Myanmar  Philippines  Singapore  Thailand  Viet Nam 2. Sex:  Male  Female 3. Age:  21-30 years  31-40 years  41-50 years  51-60 years  61-70 years 4. What is the highest level of education you have completed?  None  Primary  Secondary  Undergraduate degree (Bachelors)  Graduate degree (Masters, PhD, etc.) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 87 5. Which of the following terms best describes the type of agency or institution you represent? National Government Regional/Local Government Agriculture Border Affairs CITES Management Authority Commerce Customs Fisheries Forestry Military Natural Resources/Environment Police Other (Please specify) (Please specify) INVOLVEMENT WITH WEN 6. Is your agency the ASEAN-WEN National Focal Point?  Yes  No 7. How long have you been involved in your country’s Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN)?  Less than 1 year  1-3 years  4-6 years  7-9 years  10 or more years 88 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, how much do you know about the WEN?  1 = Very little  2 = Below average  3 = Average/Moderate  4 = Above average  5 = Very much 9. On a scale of 1 to 5, how much do you know about ARREST / Freeland Foundation?  1 = Very little  2 = Below average  3 = Average/Moderate  4 = Above average  5 = Very much INVOLVEMENT WITH ARREST 10. Which of the following activities have you participated in? (Mark all that apply)  ASEAN-WEN Regional Meeting  National WEN Coordination Meeting  Training (In-country)  Training (Regional)  Special Investigation Group (SIG) (Please specify)  Secondment to ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit (PCU)  Other (Please specify) 11. Was the activity supported by ARREST? Activity Response ASEAN-WEN Regional Meeting Yes, No, Don’t Know National WEN Coordination Meeting Yes, No, Don’t Know Training (In-country) Yes, No, Don’t Know Training (Regional) Yes, No, Don’t Know Special Investigation Group (SIG) Yes, No, Don’t Know Secondment to ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit (PCU) Yes, No, Don’t Know ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 89 12. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate the implementation of the activity? (1 = Poorly implemented, 2 = Below average, 3 = Average/Satisfactory, 4 = Above average, 5 = Very well implemented) Activity Level of Achievement ASEAN-WEN Regional Meeting 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know National WEN Coordination Meeting 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Training (In-country) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Training (Regional) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Special Investigation Group (SIG) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Secondment to ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit (PCU) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know 13. On a scale of 1 to 5, to what extent do you think ARREST activities contributed to the following objectives? (1 = Very little, 2 = A little, 3 = Average/Satisfactory, 4 = Some, 5 = Very much) Result Level of Achievement Increased skills/performance of law enforcement officials 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Built relationships/networks with law enforcement officials in other countries 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Improved information sharing about illegal wildlife trafficking 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Improved national coordination to stop wildlife crime 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Improved regional coordination to stop wildlife crime 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Increased seizures/arrests/prosecution of illegal wildlife trafficking 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know 14. What have been the most notable achievements of the ARREST program since April 2011? (Open response) 90 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 15. Which other activities should ARREST support to help achieve the results listed above? (Open response) INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PCU 16. On a scale of 1 to 5, how much do you know about the Program Coordination Unit (PCU) in Bangkok?  1 = Very little  2 = Below average  3 = Average/Moderate  4 = Above average  5 = Very much 17. Does your country provide support to the PCU? (If yes, mark all that apply)  Financial contribution  Information about illegal wildlife operations  Meeting venue  Secondments  Other (Please specify)  Don’t Know 18. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate your country’s support for the PCU?  1 = Very little  2 = Below average  3 = Average/Moderate  4 = Above average  5 = Very much  Don’t Know 19. On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate the performance of the PCU in the following areas. (1 = Poor, 2 = Below average, 3 = Average/Satisfactory, 4 = Above average, 5 = Very good) Areas Level of Achievement Organization of ASEAN-WEN Regional Meetings 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Facilitation/coordination of technical support for law enforcement officials (training, workshops, seminars) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 91 Information sharing (website, publications, newsletters) 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know 20. Please provide any other suggestions to improve PCU support to the ASEAN-WEN. (Open response) [Closing] Thank you very much for your valuable input and for helping us to suggest improvements to the ARREST program. If you have any questions, please contact __. 92 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX III: SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ARREST PARTNER DOCUMENTS (SEE ALSO SECTION V BELOW)  Aster Zhang. 2013. iThink in China. Powerpoint presented at the Wildlife Trade Coalition meeting at Beijing Normal University. July 18, 2013.  IFAW Briefing Paper: Reducing Ivory Trade in China (2013)  IFAW Powerpoint. Grace Ge Gabriel. Reduce wildlife trade in China (June 2013)  IFAW. Crystal Wang July 2013. IFAW’s Work on Wildlife Trade and ARREST Implementation. Powerpoint ASEAN AND ASEAN-WEN DOCUMENTS  ASEAN  AIPA Newsletter (June-July 2011, Feb 2012, June 2012, Nov-Dec 2012)  ASEAN Confirms a Strong Legislative Response To Combat Wildlife Crime  ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Sustainability  ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Trade in CITES Wild Fauna and Flora (2005-2010)  ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Trade in CITES Wild Fauna and Flora (2011-2015)  ASEAN Statement on Launching of the ASEAN Wildlife Law Enforcement Network  ASEAN Statement on Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of Parties to CITES (2004)  ASOF Chair Report on ASEAN and International Year of Forests (2011)  Roadmap for an ASEAN Community (2009-2015)  ASEAN-WEN  ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) Compilation of Policy Documents & ASEAN-WEN Directory. (July 2013).  ASEAN-WEN Action Update (Jan-Mar 2008, Apr-June 2008, July-Sept 2008, Oct-Dec 2008, 2008, Jan-Mar 2009, Apr-June 2009, July-Sept 2009, Oct-Dec 2009, 2009, Jan-Mar 2010, Apr-June 2010, July-Sept 2010, Oct-Dec 2010, 2010, Jan-Mar 2011, Apr-June 2011, July-Sept 2011, Oct-Dec 2011, 2011, Jan-Mar 2012, Apr-June 2012)  ASEAN-WEN Background  ASEAN-WEN National Task Forces  ASEAN-WEN Rules of Procedure  ASEAN-WEN Strategic Plan of Action  ASEAN-WEN Sustainability Strategy  ASEAN-WEN Terms of Reference  ASEAN-WEN Wildlife Trade in Southeast Asia Fact Sheet  Development of the ASEAN-WEN Program Coordination Unit (PCU) Terms of Reference  Final Report on USAID/ARREST/ASEAN-WEN Regional Forensics Assessment and Exchange Visit ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 93  Lao-WEN July 203. Lao Wildlife Enforcement Network (Lao-WEN) Implementations and Activities. Presented at the 2nd Bilateral Meeting between Lao PDR and Thailand 24-27 July 2013 Vientiane, Lao PDR by Mr. Bouaxam Inthalangsy, Director of Wildlife and Aquatic Inspections Division, Department of Forest Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.  Tiina Kitunen. National Legislation review of ASEAN CITES Laws. Powerpoint and associated report.  Tina Kitunun. 2012. Captive Breeding of Tigers in Thailand: Contested Legality. BOOKS AND OTHER TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS  Brautigan, Deborah. 2009. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa New York: Oxford University Press  Carney, Scott. 2013. The Red Market: On the Trail of the World’s Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers and Child Traffickers. William Morrow. http://www.scottcarney.com/2011/05/the-red-market/  Coggins, Chris. 2002. The Tiger and the Pangolin: Nature, Culture, and Conservation in China. University of Hawaii Press  Davies, Ben. 2005. Black Market: Inside the Endangered Species Trade in Asia. San Rafael, CA: Earth Aware Editions. http://bendavies.asia/category/wildlfe/  Ellis, Richard. 2005. Tiger Bone & Rhino Horn: The Destruction of Wildlife for Traditional Chinese Medicine. Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books  Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and the Wildlife Protection Society of India. 2006. Skinning the Cat: Crime and Politics of the Big Cat Skin Trade. www.eia￾international.org/skinning-the-cat  Freeland, Chrystia. 2012. Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. New York: Penguin.  Guest, Robert. 2011. Borderless Economics: Chinese Sea Turtles, Indian Fridges and the New Fruits of Global Capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  Mahbubani, Kishore. 2003. The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World. New York: Public Affairs.  Naim, Moises. Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy Anchor Press.  Neme, Laurel. 2012. Animal Investigators: How the World's First Wildlife Forensics Lab Is Solving Crimes and Saving Endangered Species. University Press of Florida.  Oldfield, Sara. 2003. Trade in Wildlife – Regulation for Conservation. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Part I. Background, Part II Systems of Regulation and Enforcement Part III., Case Studies Part IV Lessons from Illegal Trade in Other Goods  Rademeyer, Julian. 2013. Killing for Profit: exposing the Illegal Rhino Horn Trade. http://killingforprofit.com/  Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press 94 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Scully, Matthew. 2003. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy. St. Martin’s Griffin.  Seagrave, Sterling. 1995. Lords of the Rim: The Invisible Empire of the Overseas Chinese. New York: G. P. Putnam  Simons, Craig. 2013. The Devouring Dragon: How China’s Rise Threatens Our Natural World. New York: St. Martin’s Press  Watts, Jonathan. 2010. When a Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind – or Destroy It. London: Faber and Faber  Yeh, Emily T. 2012. Transnational environmentalism and entanglements of sovereignty: The tiger campaign across the Himalayas. Political Economy Vol. 31 (2012) p. 408-418. FREELAND FOUNDATION ARREST DOCUMENTS  Agreements with ASEAN governments, other ASEAN institutions, regional centers, other governments and international organizations  China: China Endorsement Letter of ARREST Program  Ethiopia Letter of Support for ARREST Program  Indonesia Directorate of Investigation and Forest Protection Collaboration with Freeland Foundation  Laos Department of Forestry Inspection Collaboration for ARREST Program  Laos Diplomatic Note to Support ARREST Program  Letter of Agreement UNODC RC and UNEP ROAP and Traffic and Wildlife Alliance  Letter of Cooperation: Freeland Foundation and ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity  Letter of Cooperation: Freeland Foundation and ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA)  Malaysia Letter of Cooperation for ARREST Program  Memorandum of Understanding for Support to Program Coordination Unit  Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau Letter of Cooperation with Freeland Foundation  Vietnam: Framework Agreement Between Vietnam Environmental Administration and Freeland Foundation  Newsletters & media  ARREST Newsletter (July-Sept 2012, Oct-Dec 2012, Jan-Mar 2013)  ARREST Turning the Corner and Racing Through a Green Light  Top ASEAN Lawmakers Joining Fight Against Wildlife Crime  Partnerships with other USAID-funded projects in the region  USAID/Indonesia: IFACS-Freeland Closeout Report (June 2013)  Program documents  ARREST Performance Management Plan (FY11-FY15)  ARREST Work Plan FY11 (Apr 2011-Mar 2012)  ARREST Work Plan FY12 (Apr-Sept 2012)  ARREST Work Plan FY13 (Oct 2012-Sept 2013)  Performance Management Plan  Reporting documents  ARREST Quarterly Reports (FY11 Q3, Q4; FY12 Q1, Q2, Q3; FY13 Q1, Q2) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 95  Technical documents  iTHINK Campaign Impact Evaluation, Daniel Lindgren, Rapid Asia Co (July 2013)  iTHINK China: An Integrated Communications Plan to Reduce Endangered Species Consumption in China (August 2013)  iTHINK Vietnam: Integrated Communications and Capacity Development Strategy to Reduce Endangered Species Consumption in Vietnam (July 2013)  Wildlife Consumption Survey, China (June 2012)  Wildlife Campaign Evaluation Report, Laos (Aug 2012)  Training documents  Detect Investigators Course (May 2013) MEDIA COVERAGE OF WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING  Gettleman, Jeffrey. “In Gabon, Lure of Ivory is Hard for Many to Resist,” New York Times, Dec. 26, 2012.  Gettleman, Jeffrey. “To Save Wildlife and Tourism, Kenyans Take up Arms,” New York Times, Dec. 30, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/world/africa/to-save-wildlife-and￾tourism-kenyans-take-up-arms.htm  Ian Michler. 2011. “Rhino Rage,” African Geographic, March 2011: 42-50. http://www.africageographic.com/ag_online/RhinoRage.pdf  National Geographic Channel series on “Crimes Against Nature” 2011. http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/nat-geo-wild/shows-1/crimes-against-nature/  S. Begley. 2008. “Extinction Trade: Endangered animals are the new blood diamonds as militias and warlords use poaching to fund death,” The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/01/extinction-trade.html  Scully, Matthew. June 6, 2013. “Inside the Global Industry That’s Slaughtering Africa’s Elephants. The Atlantic Monthly”  Thomas Fuller. 2013. “In Trafficking of Wildlife, Out of Reach of the Law,” New York Times, March 3, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/world/asia/notorious-figure-in-animal￾smuggling-beyond-reach-in-laos.html  The case against Vixay Keosavang:  “He is the single largest known illegal wildlife trafficker in Asia,” said Steven Galster, the executive director of Freeland, a counter-trafficking organization that has been trailing Mr. Vixay for eight years. “He runs an aggressive business, sourcing lucrative wild animals and body parts wherever they are easily obtained. Every country with commercially valuable wildlife should beware.”  Freeland has been instrumental in building a case against Mr. Vixay, and was the source of the vast majority of the documents reviewed for this article, including business contracts and Laotian customs documents that attest to the scale of his operations. Founded in Bangkok more than a decade ago, Freeland is staffed by current and former law enforcement officials from Britain, the United States, Thailand and a number of other Asian countries, and is financed partly by the American government.” 96 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report  Thomas Fuller. 2013. “ A Burden of Care Over Seized Exotic Wildlife in Thailand.” New York Times. February 4, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/world/asia/thailand￾faces-a-noahs-ark-size-burden-of-wildlife-care.html POLICY AND PROGRAM DOCUMENTS AND STUDIES FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS (INCLUDING FREELAND FOUNDATION PARTNERS FOR WORK NOT FUNDED BY ARREST)  Brookings Institution. Vanda Felbab-Brown. 2011. The Disappearing Act: The Illicit Trade in Wildlife Asia. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Working Paper No 6, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/illegal%20wildlife%20t rade%20felbabbrown/06_illegal_wildlife_trade_felbabbrown.pdf  CITES 2010. Recommendations of the 3rd International Workshop & Conference for Wildlife Detector Dogs. http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/inf/C15i-65.pdf  Congressional Research Service (CRS) 2008. Liana Sun Wyler and Pervaze A. Sheikh. International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and U.S. Policy.  Congressional Research Service (CRS) 2013. Liana Sun Wyler and Pervaze A. Sheikh. International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and U.S. Policy. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34395.pdf  Education for Nature-Vietnam 2011. Bear Bile Campaign Evaluation Report, Vietnam  IFAW 2008. Killing With Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the Worldwide Web. Yarmouth Port, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare. http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Killing%20with%20Keystrokes.pdf  IFAW 2012. Briefing Paper: Going….Going….Gone! 2p.  IFAW 2012. Grace G. Gabriel, Nigh Hua and Juan Wang. Making a Killing: A 2011 Survey of Ivory Markets in China. http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Making%20a%20Killing.pdf  IFAW 2013. Rapid Asia Flash Report. Impact Evaluation on Ivory Trade in China IFAW PSA. Mom, I have teeth. http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/ifaw-china-ivory￾report.pdf  INTERPOL 2012. Environmental Crime – It’s Global Theft. Presentation by David Higgins and Ioana Botezatu at Presentation at the Global Tiger Initiative 1st Stocktaking Meeting. Lyon, France: INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme. http://www.globaltigerinitiative2013.org/site/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/INTERPOL_En vironmental_Crime.pdf  INTERPOL 2013. Project Predator Lyon, France: INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme. http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Environmental-crime/Projects/Project￾Predator  TRACE. The ASEAN Wildlife Forensics Network: a Darwin Initiative Project.  TRAFFIC 2008. What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. TRAFFIC for the World Bank. East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Discussion Papers. East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Department ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 97  TRAFFIC 2009. Priscilla Jiao and Richard Thomas (Eds.) The State of Wildlife Trade in China: Information on the trade in wild animals and plants in China 2008. TRAFFIC East Asia China Programme. p. 33  TRAFFIC 2009. Xu Ling. Stopping illegal online wildlife trade.  TRAFFIC 2010. Wasser, M. and Bei Jiao, P., eds. Understanding the Motivations: The First Step Toward Influencing China’s Unsustainable Wildlife Consumption. http://www.traffic.org/general-reports/traffic_pub_gen33.pdf  TRAFFIC 2012. China’s Wildlife Enforcement News Digest. www.trafficchina.org  TRAFFIC 2012. Sabri Zain. Behaviour Change We Can Believe In: Towards a Global Demand Reduction Strategy for Tigers. TRAFFIC International. http://www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_mammals71.pdf  TRAFFIC 2012. Timothy Lam, Xu Ling, Soyo Takahashi and Elizabeth Burgess. Market Forces: An Examination of Marine Turtle Trade in China and Japan.  TRAFFIC 2012. Towards a Global Demand Reduction Strategy for Tigers. Presentation at the Global Tiger Initiative 1st Stocktaking Meeting. http://www.globaltigerinitiative2013.org/site/wp￾content/uploads/2012/07/Global_Demand_Reduction.pdf  TRAFFIC 2012. Creative Experts Meeting on Messaging to Reduce Consumer Demand for Tigers and Other Endangered Wildlife Species in Vietnam and China: Meeting report. Cambridge, UK: TRAFFIC International. www.traffic.org/general￾reports/traffic_pub_gen47.pdf  TRAFFIC 2012. Tom Milliken and Jo Shaw. The South Africa-Viet Nam Rhino Horn Trade Nexus: A deadly combination of institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industry professionals and Asian crime syndicates. Johannesburg, South Africa: TRAFFIC. http://www.traffic.org/home/2012/8/21/loose-horns-surging-demand-and-easy-money￾create-perfect-sto.html  TRAFFIC 2013. China Customs authority’s wildlife detector dog team ready for action. (Ruili, Yunnan Province) http://www.traffic.org/home/2013/8/8/china-customs￾authoritys-wildlife-detector-dog-team-ready-fo.html  TRAFFIC 2013. China Wildlife Enforcement News Digest. Beijing: TRAFFIC China. 6p.  UNODC 2010. The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment. Vienna, Austria: UNODC. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and analysis/tocta/TOCTA_Report_2010_low_res.pdf  UNODC 2012. Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytical Toolkit – Revised Edition. New York: UNODC for the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime. http://www.cites.org/common/resources/pub/ICCWC_Toolkit_v2_english.pdf  UN-REDD 2013. ASEAN Structure and Environmental Crime. UN-REDD Programme (FAO, UNDP and UNEP).  USG 2013. The White House Combating Wildlife Trafficking. Executive Order 13648 of July 1, 2013, Federal Register 78(129), pp. 40621-40623.  Wildlife Crime Scorecard graphic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wwfint/7884702350/sizes/o/in/photostream/  WWF 2012. Fighting Illicit Wildlife Trafficking: A consultation with Governments (conducted by Dalberg). Gland, Switzerland: Dalberg Global Development Advisors for 98 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report WWF International. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/illegal_trade/wildlife_trade_cam paign/wildlife_trafficking_report/  WWF 2012. Akella, Anita S. and Crawford Allan. Dismantling Wildlife Crime: Executive Summary. Washington DC: WWF. www.traffic.org/general-pdfs/Dismantling-Wildlife￾Crime.pdf  WWF 2012. Fuller Symposium on Conservation Crime. http://www.traffic.org/home/2012/11/14/fuller-symposium-focuses-on-wildlife￾crime.html  WWF 2012.Wildlife Crime Scorecard: Assessing Compliance with and Enforcement of CITES Commitments for Tigers, Rhinos and Elephants. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. http://assets.wnf.nl/downloads/wwf_wildlife_crime_scorecard_report.pdf USAID/USG PARTNER DOCUMENTS  ARREST Fact Sheet (2012)  ASEAN-WEN Support Program Mid-term Program Assessment Final Report and Annexes (Apr 2008)  Combating Illegal Wildlife Trafficking in Asia: Cooperative Agreement with the Freeland Foundation  Combating Illegal Wildlife Trafficking in Asia: Request for Proposals  Combating Wildlife Trafficking in Asia RDMA Briefing Paper (July 2012)  Executive Order – Combating Wildlife Trafficking, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, July 1, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/01/executive￾order-combating-wildlife-trafficking  Remarks at the Partnership Meeting on Wildlife Trafficking, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington DC, November 8, 2012. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/11/200294.htm  Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking November 8, 2012. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/11/200354.htm  USAID Biodiversity Policy (DRAFT June 2013) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 99 INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender CHINA Mr. Zhang Chuzhang Officer Anti-Smuggling Bureau, Kunming Customs Male Mr. Li (Aster) Zhang Associate Professor, Institute of Ecology Beijing Normal University Male Mr. Huang Haikui Deputy Director Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) Kunming Branch Office Male Mr. Wan Ziming Coordinator, China's National Inter￾Agency CITES Enforcement Coordination Group Director of the Law Enforcement and Training Division, CITES Management Authority of China, State Forestry Administration Male Mr. William Wachter Third Secretary Environment, Science, Technology and Health (ESTH) Section, US Embassy, Beijing Male Ms. Li Chuzhang Director General Administration Division, Yunnan Forestry Police Bureau Female Ms. Grace Ge Gabriel Asia Director International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Female Ms. Lisa Hua Campaigns Manager International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Female Ms. Crystal Wang Program Officer International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Female Ms. Scarlett Tian Wildlife Trade Education Researcher International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Female 100 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Lisa Hua Campaigns Manager International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Female Mr. Jeff He Communications Manager and Special Assistant to Asia Regional Director International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Male Mr. Li Tao Director Investigation and Enforcement Division, Anti￾Smuggling Bureau, Kunming Customs Male Ms. Li Youguo Deputy Director Investigation and Enforcement Division, Yunnan Forestry Police Bureau Male Ms. Theresa Wong Chief Operating Officer – Metro Projects & Development JCDecaux China Female Mr. Wang Hong Director Law and Regulation Division, Kunming Customs Male Mr. Adrian Ng'asi Acting Director, USAID/China Office of Donor Engagement, Policy, Planning, and Learning, USAID Male Ms. Shiwen Tu Sponsorship Department Officer Society of Entrepreneurs & Ecology (SEE) Foundation Female Mr. Meng Xianlin Executive Director General The Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Import and Export Management Office of P.R.C., State Forestry Administration Male Mr. Ma Jian Associate Representative, China Program The Nature Conservancy Male Mr. Robert Tansey Senior Advisor, External Affairs & Policy, Northeast Asia/Greater China The Nature Conservancy Male ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 101 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Yue Wang Yunnan Program Director The Nature Conservancy Male Ms. Chun Li Senior Advisor The Nature Conservancy Female Mr. Yongcheng Long Chief Scientist The Nature Conservancy Male Mr. Jian Bin Shi Director, China Programme TRAFFIC Male Ms. Xu Ling Senior Programme Officer, Wildlife Trade Issues TRAFFIC Female Ms. Zheng Han Development Program Specialist US Embassy, Beijing Female Ms. May Mei Chief Representative of China WildAid Female Ms. Megan Liu Communications Director Wildlife Conservation Society China Program Female Mr. Ramacandra Wong Project Officer Wildlife Conservation Society China Program Male Ms. Xiaomei Tan Deputy Director World Resources Institute, China Female Mr. Jianyin (Jeffrey) Huang Vice Secretary General World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies (WFCMS) Male Mr. Ziazeng Jiang Professor World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies (WFCMS) Male Mr. Robert Shui Program Coordinator World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies (WFCMS) Male Ms. Candice Jun Qiu Deputy Director, Department of World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies Female 102 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender International Liaison, Office for World Congress of Chinese Medicine (WFCMS) Ms. Shu Yan Program Coordinator, Department of International Liaison, Office for World Congress of Chinese Medicine World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies (WFCMS) Female Mr. Youde Chang Species Program Officer WWF China Male INDONESIA Mr. Christoph Behrens Integrated Expert for Capacity Development ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) Male Ms. Ria Aritonang Assistant Secretary General ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) Female Ms. Poucharman Wongsanga ASEC Senior Officer of Agriculture Industries and Natural Resources Division Association of South East Asia Nations Secretariat Female Mr. Sigit Hermawan Staff Ministry of Forestry Male Mr. Yudha Baskoro Staff Ministry of Forestry Male Ms. Debby Martyr Tiger Advisor Flora and Fauna International Female Ms. Ima Rayaningtyas Staff Foreign Cooperation, MoF Female Mr. Wilistra Danny Deputy Director Foreign Cooperation, MoF Male ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 103 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Chaerunissa Program Assistant Freeland Foundation Female Ms. Sih Yuniwati Training Advisor Indonesia Forest And Climate Support Program/IFACS Female Mr. Neville Kemp Deputy Chief of Party Indonesia Forest and Climate Support (IFACS) Male Ms. Exploitasia Semiawan Deputy Director for Program and Evaluation Ministry of Forestry Female Mr. Ardi Risman Program Head Section, Directorate of Investigation and Forest Protection Ministry of Forestry Male Mr. Mukhtar Amin Ahmadi Head of Ranger and Investigator Section, Directorate of Investigation and Forest Protection Ministry of Forestry Male Mr. Irwan Quarantine Officer Quarantine Soeta Airport Male Mr. Ismirza Brigade Eagle SPORC (Satuan Polisi Hutan Reaksi Cepat - Rapid Reaction Forest Police Unit) - Ministry of Forestry Male Mr. Gerald Heuett, Jr. Director International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program/ICITAP Indonesia US Department for Justice Male Ms. Dina Ernawati ICITAP Program Advisor for Environment US Department for Justice Female Mr. Ben Wohlauer Deputy Economic Councilor, Chief of Environment, Science, Technology & US Embassy Male 104 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Health (ESTH) Ms. Sri Muniarti￾Muniarti Environment, Science, Technology and Health/ESTH Specialist US Embassy Female Ms. Benedicta Kuspartini Environment, Science, technology and Health/ESTH Assistant US Embassy Female Ms. Jennifer Wilson Regional Development Mission for Asia, RDMA Advisor US Mission to ASEAN Female Ms. Heather D’Agnes Environment Officer USAID Female Ms. Jessica Torrens￾Spence Environment USAID Female Ms. Ashley Netherton Environment USAID Female Mr. Tony Djogo Environment Specialist USAID Male Mr. Dave Heesen Environment Advisor USAID Male Ms. Aurelia Micko Deputy Director, Environment Office USAID Female Mr. Dwi Nugroho Programme Manager Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Male PHILIPPINES Mr. Rolando Inciong Head Communication & Public Affairs ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Male Ms. Rhia C Galsim Capacity Development Officer ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Female Mr. Nilo S Katada Fishery Law Enforcer Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources/BFAR Male ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 105 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Angelito C Tabora Fishery Law Enforcer-Quick Response Team Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources/BFAR Male Mr. Capt. Pasis O Ditona Environmental officer Bureau of Custom Male Mr. Edwyn B Alesna Foreign Trade Section Bureau of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources/ BFAR Male Mr. Esteven Toledo Wildlife Section, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) DENR/Department of Environment and Natural Resources Male Mr. Larna C Dulas Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) staff DENR/Department of Environment and Natural Resources Male Ms. Theresa Mundita Lim Director PAWB Department of Environment and Natural Resources Female Ms. Josefina L de Leon Officer-in-Charge, Wildlife Resources Division, PAWB Department of Environment and Natural Resources Female Ms. Belinda da La Paz Officer in Charge Haribon Foundation Female Mr. Raul G Terso Committee Secretary, Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives, Philippines Male Mr. Marlon T Valencia Supervising Legislative, Staff Officer 2 House of Representatives, Philippines Male Mr. Archie Valeriano Supervising Legislative, Staff Officer 1 House of Representatives, Philippines Male Ms. Lourdes Rajini Rye Deputy Executive Director Inter-Parliamentary Relations and Special Affairs Department (IPRSAD) Female 106 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Rommel M Reyes Committee Secretary, Special Committee on Reforestation SLSO II, Committee on Ecology Inter-Parliamentary Relations and Special Affairs Department (IPRSAD) Male Mr. Virglio S Palpal￾latoe Curator 2, Zoology Section National Museum Male Mr. Perry Archival Buenavente Curator Entomology Section National Museum Male Ms. Luz Corpus Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Management Unit PAWB/Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau Female Ms. Ipat Luna Attorney Tanggol Kalikasang NGO Female Mr. Heath Bailey Economic Officer ESTH US Embassy Male Ms. Maria Theresia N Villa ESTH &Energy Specialist US Embassy Female Mr. Randy Vinluan Sustainable landscape Specialist, Office of Environment, Energy and Climate Change USAID Male Mr. Oliver Agoncillo NRB Team Leader USAID Male Mr. John Collanta M&E Specialist USAID Male Mr. Roger Carlson Acting Deputy Mission Director USAID Male Ms. Cristina Velez Acting Office Director USAID Female ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 107 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Gregg Ryan IEC Specialist WWF Philippines Male THAILAND Mr. Marc Suranartyuth Advisor on Law Enforcement Extension Office (LEEO) ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN￾WEN) Male Mr. Chrisgel Ryan Ang Cruz Assistant Senior Officer ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN￾WEN) Program Coordination Unit Male Mr. Manop Lauprasert Senior Officer ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN￾WEN)Program Coordination Unit Male Ms. Piyaporn Wongruang Journalist Bangkok Post Female Mr. Athapol Charoenshunsa Forestry Technical Officer, Senior Professional Level, Forest Protection and Fire Control Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Male Mr. Joseph Bagga￾Taves Thailand Environment, Science, Technology and Health( ESTH) Officer Economic Section US Embassy, Bangkok Male Mr. Steve Galster Executive Director and Chief of Party, ARREST Freeland Foundation Male Mr. Liu Ning Deputy Director and Deputy Chief of Party, ARREST Freeland Foundation Male Mr. Mark Bowman Director of Field Operations Freeland Foundation Male 108 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Bussara Tirakalyanapan Senior Research and Development Officer Freeland Foundation Female Mr. Brian Gonzales Head of Program Reporting and Monitoring/ASEAN-WEN Liaison Officer Freeland Foundation Male Ms. Siwaporn Teerawichitchainan Communications Director Freeland Foundation Female Ms. Onkuri Majumdar Senior Program Officer (SA-WEN) Freeland Foundation Female Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan Chairman Freeland Foundation Male Mr. Tim Redford Training Coordinator Freeland Foundation Male Mr. Timothy York Deputy Attaché, Homeland Security Investigations Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security US Embassy, Bangkok Male Mr. Jeff Silk Director International Law Enforcement Academy, Bangkok (State/INL) Male Mr. Vatanarak Suranartyuth Police Lieutenant, Advisor on Land, Natural Resources and Environment INTERPOL, Bangkok Male Mr. Nuwat Superintendent Pangsida National Park Male Mr. Wisak Superintendent Pangsida National Park Male Mr. Thanatchon Kengkasikij Deputy Superintendent of Interpol sub￾division, Foreign Affairs Division Royal Thai Police Male ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 109 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Sasin Chalerplarp Director Sueb Nakhasatien Foundation Male Mr. Thewin Meesap Superintendent Thaplan National Park Male Mr. Jompang Hoinkinh Forest Ranger Thaplan National Park Male Mr. Sarawut Jandachot Forest Ranger Thaplan National Park Male Mr. Morakot Posri Forest Ranger Thaplan National Park Male Mr. Chalao Kotat Forest Ranger Thaplan National Park Male Mr. James Compton Regional Director, Asia TRAFFIC Male Ms. Panjit Tansom Program Officer TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Thailand Office Female Mr. Ali Jalili Director, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) US Embassy, Bangkok Male Mr. Rick Switzer Regional ESTH Officer, East Asia Hub US Embassy, Bangkok Male Mr. Matthew Kustel Political-Economic Officer (covers ESTH issues) US Embassy, Vientiane, Laos Male Ms. Teresa Leonardo Regional Science & Technology Advisor USAID RDMA Female Mr. David Roberts LMI Coordinator USAID RDMA Male Mr. Michael Yates Mission Director USAID RDMA Male Mr. Ian Robertson Regional Legal Advisor (RLA) USAID RDMA Male Ms. Sudarat Regional Animal Health Advisor USAID RDMA Female 110 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Damrongwatanapokin Mr. Dan Schar Regional Emerging Infectious Diseases Advisor USAID RDMA Male Mr. Chris Galm Documentation and Communications (DOCS) USAID RDMA Male Mr. Alfred Nakatsuma Director, Regional Environment Office USAID RDMA Male Ms. Patty Alleman Gender Advisor USAID RDMA Female Mr. Michael Silberman Regional Alliance Builder USAID RDMA Male Ms. Mahin Rashid Documentation & Communications USAID RDMA, (TDY from USAID/Bangladesh) Female Ms. Karittha "Apple" Jenchiewchen CO/AO Procurement USAID RDMA, Contracts Female Ms. Piyanate Chaoomchaisiri Analyst USAID RDMA, Office of Financial Management Female Ms. Phaweena Sitathani Analyst USAID RDMA, Office of Financial Management Female Ms. Shirley Hoffman Program Officer USAID RDMA, Program Office Female Mr. Jedsada Taweekan Program Development Specialist USAID RDMA, Program Office Male Mr. Apichai Thirathon Environment Officer (ARREST and ASEAN-WEN Support Projects) Retired USAID RDMA, Regional Environment Office (REO) Male ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 111 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. Barry Flaming Regional Biodiversity Conservation Advisor USAID RDMA, Regional Environment Office (REO) Male Ms. Suphasuk "Bird" Pradubsuk Program Development Specialist and ARREST Alternate AOR USAID RDMA, Regional Environment Office (REO) Female Ms. Juniper Neill Deputy Office Director, Regional Environment Office USAID RDMA, Regional Environment Office (REO) Female Ms. Danielle Tedesco Natural Resources Management Officer and ARREST AOR USAID RDMA, Regional Environment Office (REO) Female Ms. Supattira (Ke) Rodboontham Strategic Information Specialist and ARREST COR USAID RDMA, Regional Environment Office (REO) Female Mr. Thomas D'Agnes Director USAID/Laos Male Mr. Petch Manopawitr Conservation Program Manager WWF Thailand Male UNITED STATES Ms. Mary Melnyk Environment Team Leader Asia and Middle East Bureaus, USAID Female Ms. Hannah Fairbank Senior Biodiversity and Natural Resources Advisor Forestry and Biodiversity Office, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3), USAID Female Ms. Mary Rowen Biodiversity Advisor Forestry and Biodiversity Office, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3), USAID Female 112 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. David Higgins Manager, Environmental Crimes Program INTERPOL Male Ms. Rowena Watson Foreign Affairs Officer Office of Conservation and Water (ECW), Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), U.S. Department of State Female Ms. Megan Hill Natural Resources Management Specialist Office of Land Tenure and Resources Management, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3), USAID Female Mr. Kevin Garlick Special Agent US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Male Mr. Fred Bagley Senior Wildlife Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Male Mr. Phil Alegranti Special Agent US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Male Mr. Ed Newcomer Special Agent US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Male Ms. Cynthia Mackie Director, Asia-Pacific Region US Forest Service Female Ms. Beth Lebow Program Manager, Asia-Pacific Region US Forest Service Female Ms. Shelley Gardner Illegal Logging Program Coordinator US Forest Service Female Ms. Darcy Nelson China and Mekong Coordinator US Forest Service Female Ms. Mary Rowen Forestry & Biodiversity Team USAID Female VIETNAM Ms. Hoang Thi Thanh Deputy Director Biodiversity Conservation Agency (BCA), Vietnam Environment Administration (VEA), Ministry of Female ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 113 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Nhan Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) Ms. Van Anh Nguyen Thi Project Director, Wildlife Consumption Project (GEF) Biodiversity Conservation Agency (BCA), Vietnam Environment Administration (VEA), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) Female Mr. Dan Rathburn Project Director, Support for Trade Acceleration Project (STAR PLUS) Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) Male Mr. Do Quang Tung Coordinator of Vietnam Wildlife Enforcement Network (VN-WEN) Director, Vietnam CITES Management Authority, Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Mr. Nguyen Viet Khanh Lieutenant Division of Crime Prevention on Trade, Importing and Exporting of Goods, Viet Nam Environmental Crime Police Department, Ministry of Public Security of Viet Nam Male Mr. Doug Hendrie Senior Technical Advisor Education for Nature, Vietnam (ENV) Male Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong Dung Vice Director Education for Nature, Vietnam (ENV) Female Mr. Tran Viet Hung Vice Director Education for Nature, Vietnam (ENV) Male Mr. Eric Frater Chief Environment, Science, Technology, and Health (ESTH) Section US Embassy, Hanoi Male Ms. Thanh Tu Nguyen Assistant Environment, Science, Technology, and Health (ESTH) Section US Embassy, Hanoi Female 114 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Ms. Veronica Lee Environment Officer Office of Environment and Social Development, USAID/Vietnam Female Ms. Rosario "Chato" Calderon Senior Climate Change Advisor Office of Environment and Social Development, USAID/Vietnam Female Ms. Oanh Kim Thuy Infectious Diseases Advisor Office of Public Health, USAID/Vietnam Female Ms. Naomi Doak Coordinator TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Greater Mekong Programme Female Mr. Pepper Trail Senior Forensic Scientist, Ornithologist US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Male Ms. Kristin Bork Deputy Director, Office of Health USAID/Vietnam Female Mr. Vuong Tien Manh Scientific and Cooperation Officer Vietnam CITES Management Authority, Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Male Ms. Amanda Fine Associate Director, Health Asia Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Female Mr. Scott Robertson Country Representative Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Male Ms. Anjali Acharya Environment Cluster Leader World Bank Female Ms. Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van Policy and Advocacy WWF Vietnam Female Mr. Dung Huynh Tien Conservation Programme Manager WWF Vietnam Male OTHER ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 115 ARREST Evaluation - Informants Interviewed Name Title Affiliation Gender Mr. James Compton Regional Director, Asia TRAFFIC, Australia Male Mr. David Higgins Manager, Environmental Crimes Program INTERPOL, France Male 116 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX IV: EVIDENCE MATRIX EVALUATION QUESTION DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising 1. To what extent have demand reduction and awareness raising activities been successful at reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products?  Document Review  Key Informant Interviews Donor/USG Partners:  USAID/RDMA, DoS Implementers:  Freeland Foundation, IFAW, ENV  J. Walter Thompson, AsiaWorks Beneficiaries:  ASEAN governments, civil society External Actors:  TRAFFIC, WCS, WWF, TNC, WildAid, media Law Enforcement Capacity Building 2. To what extent has law enforcement capacity building been institutionalized and improved anti￾poaching and anti-trafficking efforts within ASEAN-WEN countries and regionally?  Document Review  Key Informant Interviews  Survey Donor/USG Partners:  USAID/RDMA, DoS, DOJ, USFWS, DHS Implementers:  Freeland Foundation Beneficiaries:  ASEAN-WEN PCU, National WENs  Protected area rangers, law enforcement personnel and officials, customs authorities External Actors:  CITES, NGOs Sustainability, Partnerships, and Learning 3. To what extent has the program met sustainability objectives set forth in the agreement and work plans regarding: a. ASEAN-WEN and PCU  Document Review  Key Informant Interviews  Survey Donor/USG Partners:  USAID/RDMA, DoS, DOJ, USFWS, USFS, U.S. Mission to ASEAN Implementers:  Freeland Foundation  ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 117 sustainable financing; b. Regional and trans-regional partnerships (e.g., between ASEAN-WEN and INTERPOL, CITES, WCO, UNODC), including private sector partnerships; c. Learning exchanges (e.g., training, special investigation groups (SIGs), information exchanges, secondments); and d. The strengthening of regional centers of excellence? Beneficiaries:  ASEAN-WEN PCU  National WENs External Actors:  CITES, AIPA, ASEAN Secretariat 118 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX V: POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE COMMUNICATION (BCC) TO ARREST: RATIONALE AND PROPOSED NEXT STEPS18 WHAT IS BEHAVIOR CHANGE COMMUNICATION? Behavior change communication (BCC) is a process for strategic use of communication to promote and sustain changes in behaviors in individuals, communities and/or societies through participatory processes. BCC is different from ordinary instructional methods of education and/or the information, education and communication (IEC), and is target-specific. A society consists of many sub-groups, and therefore, the BCC strategy will vary from group to group. Providing people with information and teaching them how they should behave (cognitive intervention) does not necessarily lead to desirable change in their response/behavior or, if it does, it might not be sustainable. However, when there is a supportive environment with dissemination of tailored information and communication, a desirable change in the behavior of the target group can be more promising. An effective BCC intervention requires a strategic planning/design derived from a thorough understanding of factors or determinants influencing the behavior. A number of behavior change theories19,20 have been developed and widely utilized especially in the public health arena. The theories have continuously been evolving and moving from linear cognitive characteristics such as KAP (Knowledge, Attitude and Practices) and Stages of Change Models to more emphasis on the interdependence of cognitive, environmental setting and life domains such as Health Belief Model, Social Changing Theory, PRECEDE/PROCEED Framework and Ecological Model to promote sustainable changes towards healthier behaviors and lifestyles. These have proved to be effective interventions to promote positive behaviors that are appropriate to different settings and different target groups, and can be applied to other development sectors. Different BCC models/approaches address different challenges. However, in general, BCC encompasses three key elements: communication strategy, community 18 Prepared by Nigoon Jitthai (RDMA), Megan Hill (E3) and George F. Taylor II. 19 Karen Glanz, et al. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, research, and practice. 2nd Edition. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, USA. 1997. 20 Lucie Richard, Lise Gauvin and Kim Raine. Ecological Models Revisited: Their Uses and Evolution in Health Promotion Over Two Decades. Annu. Rev. Public. Health. 2011. 32:307-26. “Those who promote positive change most effectively are not those who provide a new set of answers, but those who allow a new set of questions.” Community Mobilization and Primary Prevention, Prevent Connect Project 1 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 119 mobilization and advocacy. When appropriately woven together, they not only improve awareness and promote positive behaviors but also provide a supportive environment that enable people to initiate and sustain these positive behaviors. Communication Strategy Evidence-based communication strategy is an essential pillar for an effective BCC intervention. That said, it is unrealistic to expect that communication strategy alone will change people’s behaviors. Messages, means and methods to deliver the messages and ways to monitor and evaluate effectiveness of the strategy must be derived from a thorough formative research and behavior analysis for each target group. The messages should emphasize the missing KAP among target groups that are directly linked to the intended behavior change, along with options for different target groups and settings. Several types of IEC tools/materials can be applied as strategic communication means for different types of interventions for different target groups. For example, a campaign through audio-visual aid tools such as posters, pamphlets and radio/television spots could be attractive tools to disseminate information or key messages to a large public audience, but the tools themself are less likely to be effective in terms of behavior change. They may be useful in reminding people of the key messages, as they tend to provide short messages, but they often lack a description or rationale behind the messages as well as a focus on specific groups that the interventions intend to target. Stories, dramas and plays can present role models for behavior changes. Individual or group discussions tend to be more effective, as they provide opportunities for the target groups to plan for action/solution, while peer support groups provide encouragement to adapt new behaviors. However, the discussion and peer support groups are labor-intensive and require a certain level of communication and facilitation skills among implementers. Usually, a combination of different means is required to ensure appropriate reach to different types of target audiences such as using audio-visual aid tools or plays as an entry point to follow-up discussions on the planned behavior change. Community Mobilization Community mobilization is a process of bringing together and empowering members of the community from various sectors to raise awareness, address barriers and elevate demand for a particular development program or intervention. It is an attempt to bring both human and non￾human resources together to promote ownership in undertaking actions to achieve sustainable development. The actions are stimulated by a community itself, or by others, that are planned, carried out and evaluated by a community’s individuals, groups and organizations on a participatory and sustained basis to improve the issues of concern in the community. It is also considered a democratic and rights-based approach as it helps communities to identify their own needs and to respond to those needs. Community mobilization is particularly useful when the recommended behaviors may conflict with their beliefs/norms or be seen as a threat to their lives and/or livelihood. However, it is important to note that the notion of “community” does not necessarily refer to villages or towns but also other forms of formal/informal organized bodies/entities. 120 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report It is also important to note that the goal of community mobilization is not to educate or provide a service to a community but rather to empower communities to recognize problems and find ways to address them. Meetings/discussions and campaigns are common approaches for community mobilization. A thorough understanding of the target communities through an assessment, community and stakeholder mapping or other exercises is essential for developing appropriate approaches for community mobilization. A key challenge in implementing community mobilization is that it is a mix of structure and the unknown that could be difficult to manage and requires a highly skilled facilitator who has good relationships with the target communities. Advocacy Advocacy is a political process that aims to influence policy and resource allocation decisions within political, economic and social systems and institutions. It includes a range of strategies designed to involve people in influencing decision making at the local, national and international levels. It usually involves strategic planning, community mobilization, capacity strengthening, coalition building and the promotion of changed policies and environments. Effective advocacy should create an environment for cumulative change beyond the level of the individual. The presence of a large group of advocates presents an ideal situation with the potential to build on an already positive mindset. However, advocacy efforts should have a clearly defined objective and plan that are derived from a thorough analysis such as policy and stakeholder mapping and policy implementation assessment. Advocacy can include many formal/informal activities that a person or organization can undertake at different levels, from the grassroots to the global. The phenomena of transnational issues such as pandemic infectious diseases as well as regionalization and globalization draw special attention to advocacy beyond the national level. Advocacy may be conducted through an advocate or a group of advocates, such as lobbying that is a form of advocacy where a direct approach is made to legislators on an issue. It may also be conducted through people’s participation or through civil society organizations that play a significant role in modern politics. Some commonly used means for advocacy are media21/social media campaigns, public speaking and policy briefs or other types of documentation. 21 Jerningan, D.H. and Wright, P. "Media advocacy: lessons from community experiences". Journal of Public Health Policy. 1996. 17(3):306–330. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 121 ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR CHANGE AT USAID: EXAMPLES AND RESOURCES The purpose of this section is to highlight examples of environmental social marketing and social change programming supported by USAID around the world. These examples are by no means exhaustive—many programs include aspects of social marketing, especially in integrated programming for health and agriculture, as well as in the use of internet communication technology (ICT) such as mobile banking programming. The document also includes a list of resources on the web for further information on planning and implementing social marketing campaigns. Examples of USAID Environment Programs Using Social Marketing 1. Callaloo, a radio serial drama implemented by PCI Media Impact in the Caribbean http://mediaimpact.org/production/callaloo/ Callaloo is a locally‐written and produced radio serial drama that depicts characters facing troubling changes and decisions relating to pressing issues of personal health and the health of their surrounding environment—issues that individuals living throughout the Caribbean are facing in their everyday lives. This serial radio drama is a component of PCI Media Impact’s larger My Island—My Community communications program. As a strategic “Communications for Behavior Change” program, this program uses the Callaloo radio serial dramas accompanied by radio call‐in shows and community mobilization campaigns to build knowledge, shift attitudes and change behaviors of its audience members around critical issues the Caribbean is facing. The three target issues are: 1) increasing resilience to climate change in coastal communities by promoting natural solutions; 2) conserving biodiversity by improving solid waste management practices; and 3) reducing HIV infection rates (particularly among youths) while increasing good practices relating to sexual and reproductive health. 2. Public Action for the Environment Project (PAP), Jordan (http://www.jordanpap.com/en/content/who‐we‐are) The PAP Project is a public education and behavior change project in Jordan funded by USAID to support technical and policy investments in the Water and Energy sectors. PAP is implemented by ECODIT, a US‐based consulting firm. PAP’s role is to help Jordanians better manage their scarce resources by providing competitive grants to the private sector and NGOs to encourage the general public to take small steps in conserving water and energy, and to provide guidance to large consumers to improve their efficiency while also reducing their costs. The PAP approach differs from most projects because it uses a systematic and tested methodology to target specific behaviors that either need to be changed or need to be added to improve impact on the resource. But, in either case, it is the change in consumer behavior 122 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report that PAP considers its indicator of success. PAP does this by placing the consumer in the forefront of our effort, understanding as much as we can about a consumer’s motivations and willingness to accept the changes. 3. Global Fish Alliance (G-FISH) (Honduras, Cambodia, Mozambique, Nicaragua) and the SCALE methodology systems approach to achieving social change http://www.globalfishalliance.org/activities.html The Global Fish Alliance promotes sustainable fisheries and aquaculture practices through the application of a system-wide approach that balances economic, environmental, governmental and social components essential to enhancing livelihoods and biodiversity. Supported by the U.S. Government and partners, G-FISH brings together government, private sector and civil society to work collaboratively on specific fisheries around the world. Reforming fisheries requires strong local engagement of the stakeholders involved in the value chain to ensure a locally-driven and -owned process. A systems approach to fisheries can improve the impact of development assistance to the sector by identifying and targeting the key leverages points with appropriate technical assistance, from changing individual and stakeholder group behaviors to strengthening institutions to changing economic incentives. Over the last 15 years, FHI 360 has developed and refined a systems approach to social change, the System-wide Collaborative Action for Livelihoods and the Environment (SCALE) approach. SCALE is a communications-driven management approach that results in greater impact at scale, creating social capital, strengthening governance and increasing sustainable economic growth and livelihoods. This innovative approach provides all stakeholders with a common road map to identify resources within the system, focus on gaps in technical expertise and evaluate, initiate and implement system-wide collaboration for wide-scale impact. To better ensure a sustainable systematic solution, a project must engage all individuals and organizations that have a vested interest in fisheries. The end result is that stakeholders become committed to implementing action plans created together and sharing resources, thus translating ownership of the issue into local leadership structures. G-FISH seeks to empower people to become the drivers of their own development process by strengthening their capacity for informed decision making and sustainable, collaborative action. A complete set of documents on the SCALE methodology and its uses in other parts of the world to mobilize social change on other environmental topics (Kenya, working with cattle grazers, and in Morocco, working with native plants and the botanical industry) can be found at: http://rmportal.net/library/content/usaid-scale-collection/complete-set-of-scale-content-on￾the-rm-portal An online tutorial introducing the basics steps of the SCALE methodology is available at: http://lms.rmportal.net/ 4. The WASHPlus Program http://www.washplus.org/ ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 123 The WASHplus project supports healthy households and communities by creating and delivering interventions that lead to improvements in access, practices and health outcomes related to water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and indoor air pollution (IAP). This five-year project (2010- 2015), funded through USAID’s Bureau for Global Health (AID-OAA-A-10-00040) and led by FHI 360 in partnership with CARE and Winrock International, provides program implementation and technical assistance and uses integrated approaches to reduce diarrheal diseases and acute respiratory infections, the top two global killers of children under five years of age. WASHplus can integrate WASH and IAP activities into existing education, HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health and nutrition programs and builds strong in-country partnerships to increase impact. In addition, WASHplus is charged with promoting innovation in the WASH and IAP sectors. 5. The Health Communication Capacity Collaborative (HC3) Project http://www.jhuccp.org/whatwedo/projects/health‐communication‐capacity‐collaborative‐hc3 The Health Communication Capacity Collaborative (HC3), a five-year project funded by USAID, envisions a world where health communication is transformative. Led by Center for Communication Programs (CCP) in partnership with Management Sciences for Health (MSH) and NetHope, with specialized communication partners Internews, Population Services International (PSI) and Ogilvy Public Relations, HC3 will strengthen in‐country capacity to implement state-of￾the-art health communication in order to ensure the sustainability of evidence-based behavior change programming. The HC3 project can receive funding from any USAID account and environmental behavior change is included in the program’s scope. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARREST The mid-term evaluation of the ARREST project has recommended a re-think of the Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising component of the project with increased emphasis on demand reduction and particular attention to behavior change communication. It has recommended that Freeland work with BCC experts on this re-think and that the ARREST communications team be augmented with a BCC expert. 124 ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report Figure 4 Illustrative Sample of Application of BCC Framework to Illegal Wildlife Trade/Trafficking Project BCC strategy can support projects related to wildlife trade/trafficking, including supporting the ARREST Project to achieve its objectives. Figure 4 presents an illustrative sample of how BCC principles could be applied to illegal wildlife trade/trafficking–related projects, not only for demand reduction but also for supply reduction and enhancing law and enforcement. In order for the targeted groups to change their behaviors, they need to understand the issue, develop favorable attitudes towards positive behaviors and master skills for changing behaviors. Based upon the illustrative BCC Framework in Figure 4, below are key steps for making a BCC intervention a successful one. Understanding the targeted groups and the environment/circumstance around the issues Conduct a rigorous analysis to try to understand at least:  Who the consumers and suppliers of wildlife products are, what drives people to demand and/or supply the products and what the supports and obstacles are for their behavior changes. This should also include understanding their socio-demographic status, which can help foster a more appropriate intervention that the targeted groups can afford;  Where or which communities to target, and who the key players in the communities are;  What are the supportive/non-supportive policies and how can the existing policies that are supportive be enforced; and  What types of communications are available and accessed by the targeted groups. This should also include their favorite entertainment and how they spend their free time to determine the most accessible communication means among different targeted groups. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 125 Develop an evidence-based intervention and tools/materials Empirical data obtained from the analysis should be used in the intervention designs. Accordingly, “targeted” interventions may be required for certain target groups/purposes, while a broader general “non-targeted” awareness campaign may be more appropriate for other groups/purposes. Tools/materials to be used in the interventions need to be pretested and modified. The processes may need to be repeated several times until the accuracy, clearness and appropriateness of the tools/materials can be ensured. Extra caution is required for billboards, posters or other types of visual-aid tools with very short message, as they may look attractive but could be misleading because they can be prone to different interpretations. Implement and manage the intervention It is critical that the implementation follow the design. With strong evidence-based design, only minor adjustments should be required during the implementation unless the situation has changed from the time of the design. Staff must be trained/retrained on how to deliver the messages, how to select appropriate tools/materials for different settings and how to interact with the target groups in different circumstances. Strong management and oversight of the implementation is critical to ensuring that a well-thought-out design can lead to the expected results. The intervention must also be implemented regularly, at a sufficient scale and with long enough duration to ensure the end result of behavior change, rather than only information dissemination. Monitor and evaluate the intervention A well planned monitoring should be conducted not only for the implementation of the intervention but also the situation/circumstance surrounding the issue of concern. This will allow for timely correction if the implementation did not go according to plan and/or for adjustments in the intervention if the situation has changed. Robust evaluation research should be planned up front to generate empirical data. Both monitoring and evaluation data should be used to revisit the strategy/intervention design and react accordingly. Selected Available Resources Globally, there are many organizations/institutions specialized on communication strategy. Table 4 presents a list of selected USAID implementing partners in the health and population fields with BCC-related expertise that also have a presence and/or programs being implemented in Asia. It is highly recommended that their expertise be sought out to assist the Freeland Foundation in adding a BCC approach in order to enhance ARREST’s impacts over the remaining years of the project. 126ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Table 4: Selected USAID with BCC-Related Expertise Organization Expertise Contact Person Location Note Family Health International (FHI 360) http://www.fhi360.or g Strategic Behavior Change Matt Avery Strategic Behavioral Communication Officer (mavery@fhi360.org) Asia-Pacific Regional Office, Bangkok, Thailand  Many strategy and the “how to” tools are available on-line at: http://www.globalhealthcom munication.org/strategies  Also operates in China but the BCC person is based in Bangkok Caroline Francis Deputy Country Director (cfrancis@fhi360.org) Vietnam Country Office, Hanoi, Vietnam Population Service International (PSI) http://www.psi.org Social Marketing David Valentine Bangkok, Thailand  Currently in Burma but will relocate to Bangkok soon. Truong Dinh Linh chi (chidinh@psi.org.vn) Hanoi, Vietnam Health Policy Project (Implemented by the Futures Group) http://www.healthp olicyproject.com Policy Advocacy Felicity Young (fyoung@hpi-asia.rti.org) Bangkok, Thailand  Soon to close out Bangkok office and will be based in Brisbane, Australia  The work in Asia is implemented by Research Triangle International (RTI) as a subcontract to the Futures Group. Health Policy Initiative (Implemented by Abt Associates Inc) http://www.healthp olicyinitiative.com Policy Advocacy Tran Minh Gioi Chief of Party (Gioi@abtvn.com) Hanoi, Vietnam  Some tools on how to move from policy to action are available online ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 127 Environmental Behavior Change at USAID: Resources Social Marketing Resources on the Web Making Health Communication Programs Work, also known as “The Pink Book”, National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/pinkbook/page2 This is an excellent reference on social marketing communications campaign theory and planning. While focused on health communications, its content is relevant for any field. Community-based Social Marketing: Douglas McKenzie-Mohr http://www.cbsm.com/public/world.lasso This site provides case studies of environmental social marketing campaigns, a resource library of journal articles, training opportunities and content from his book, Fostering Sustainable Behavior, an excellent introduction to environmental behavior change topics. Social Marketing to Protect the Environment, Douglas McKenzie-Mohr, Nancy Lee, P. Wesley Shultze and Philip Kotler http://www.amazon.com/Social-Marketing-Protect-Environment-Works/dp/1412991293 This is an excellent text on environmental behavior change, including examples of campaigns from around the world. http://www.amazon.com/Conservation-Psychology-Understanding-Promoting￾Nature/dp/1405176784/ref=pd_sim_b_3/182-7344237-0535235 Discovering the Activation Point, Communications Leadership Institute and Spitfire Strategies http://www.activationpoint.org/ This website and guide is an excellent resource for communications campaign planning, focusing on how to inspire and persuade people to act. Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human Care for Nature, Susan Clayton http://www.amazon.com/Conservation‐Psychology‐Understanding‐Promoting‐ Nature/dp/1405176784/ref=pd_sim_b_3/182‐7344237‐0535235 Excellent text on understanding how humans think about, experience and interact with nature, all critical aspects to understanding human attitudes and behaviors. The Basics of Social Marketing, The Turning Point Collaborative http://www.turningpointprogram.org/Pages/pdfs/social_market/smc_basics.pdf This guide is an excellent resource for an introduction to planning a social marketing campaign. 128ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation CDCynergy Social Marketing Edition Version 2 http://www.orau.gov/cdcynergy/soc2web/default.htm This interactive CD ROM-based software will help you plan, implement and evaluate social marketing initiatives. It contains over 700 resources, such as consultant videos, best-practice case studies, templates and journal articles. While developed for health communications campaigns, its content is relevant for any social marketing topic. Environmental organizations working on demand reduction using behavior change communication Two groups that have experience using BCC in their programs are IFAW and TRAFFIC. At IFAW, the key contact is Kelvin Ailie. http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/about-us/wildlife￾trade/kelvin-alie At TRAFFIC, contacts include James Compton (james.compton@traffic.org) and Sabri Zain. TRAFFIC’s current work using a BCC approach is focused on China and Vietnam. TRAFFIC’s broader work, linked to the Global Tiger Initiative, is described in the following documents: TRAFFIC. 2012. Sabri Zain. Behaviour Change We Can Believe In: Towards a Global Demand Reduction Strategy for Tigers. TRAFFIC International. http://www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_mammals71.pdf TRAFFIC 2012. Towards a Global Demand Reduction Strategy for Tigers. Presentation at the Global Tiger Initiative 1st Stocktaking Meeting. New Delhi May 2012. http://www.globaltigerinitiative2013.org/site/wp￾content/uploads/2012/07/Global_Demand_Reduction.pdf TRAFFIC. 2011. Creative Experts’ Meeting on Messaging to Reduce Consumer Demand for Tigers and Other Endangered Wildlife Species in Vietnam and China. Hong Kong, 22-23 November 2011: Meeting Report. www.traffic.org/general-reports/traffic_pub_gen47.pdf ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 129 ANNEX VI: LOOKING FORWARD (2013–2016) In this Annex the Evaluation Team presents a limited number of additional thoughts that the Team believes deserve consideration to increase the impact of ARREST during its remaining three years and lay the groundwork for future RDMA and broader USG programs to address illegal wildlife trafficking in the region. The Team discusses these matters, reaches appropriate conclusions and makes selected recommendations for RDMA’s consideration. DEMAND REDUCTION AND AWARENESS RAISING The Evaluation Team has included its recommendations for work on Demand Reduction and Awareness Raising for the remaining years of ARREST in the body of the report. Of these recommendations, the Team believes the most important recommendation to be the incorporation of BCC into this component of ARREST. Additional thoughts from the Team on this topic have been presented in Annex V. LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING Discussion Local Community Involvement in Law Enforcement and Outreach A number of NGOs, LE officials and USG officials who were interviewed, specifically in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, indicated the need for more local community involvement and training in LE activities, especially in those rural areas where much of the poaching and other illegal trafficking activities are actually taking place. Identifying and prioritizing so-called “hotspots,” as they are commonly referred to, would help to target specific areas and communities for more intensive law enforcement (and outreach) efforts, and would include such areas as those where there are existing concentrations of endangered species vulnerable to poaching and areas of high biological diversity or natural resource value such as protected areas like national parks or wildlife preserves; known routes of illegal trafficking, including those used for drugs, weapons or human trafficking; areas where wildlife crimes have been frequently encountered in the past; coastal areas and known shipping lanes where illegal activities have been known to occur but because of their location are often very difficult to detect and patrol without intensified surveillance; and areas where rapid land-use changes have created an instability both among the local human and wild animal populations. It was suggested by another international NGO that as one way of addressing these situations, more localized or regional “SWAT”-type teams comprised of law enforcement officials that have trained together and worked together as close-knit units—perhaps even recruited from the local communities “...If there is any hope for the world at all, it does not live in climate change conference rooms or in cities with tall buildings. It lives low to the ground, with its arms around the people who go to battle every day to protect their forests, their mountains and their rivers because they know that the forests, the mountains and the rivers protect them.” Arundhati Roy, Walking With the Comrades 130ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation themselves—should be established and encouraged to stay and work within in the same hotspots to gain greater familiarity with these areas and the people involved in illegal activities. It was also felt that members of these teams could additionally serve as trainers for the local citizenry in providing support to them. Two groups of Forest Rangers that were interviewed, as well as an international NGO involved in anti-poaching and related activities in rural areas, including protected areas, pointed out the need to not divorce law enforcement activities from those of awareness-raising or outreach at the local community level. In their view, instead of law enforcement officials always playing a strictly adversarial role in dealing with the communities in their pursuit of local poachers and smugglers, these same officials could also serve to educate the community on the nature of wildlife crimes and to provide community members with positive messages and informational materials on the value of preserving and protecting local wildlife, plants and habitats for the long-term benefit of the community. They felt that NGOs, in addition to ARREST/Freeland staff, could play a major role in providing training to LE rangers on techniques of delivering environmental education in a readily understandable manner, who could then, in turn, deliver relevant environmental messages to an array of community members to engage them in both preventing and discouraging illegal wildlife trafficking (and harmful land-use practices), particularly within hotspots. In some areas, particularly in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, NGOs currently act as an important liaison between official LE authorities and the local communities both in providing technical assistance and training in collecting baseline data and in serving as monitors of on-the-ground situations requiring LE intervention or the attention of community leaders. One researcher in Indonesia who has been intensely studying land-use changes in the region has concluded that deforestation, slash-and-burn agriculture and other forms of habitat degradation, particularly in source areas for illegally obtained wildlife, have contributed to the problem of wildlife crimes both through loss of livelihoods for local community members, who then resort to poaching, and by concentrating the last remnants of endangered and/or exploited wildlife species to ever smaller areas thus rendering them more vulnerable to poaching. Advanced Wildlife Identification Training and Technology In both individual and group interviews held with a number of LE officials, WEN officials and quarantine officers, among others, the need was often expressed for more sophisticated and useful tools and training regarding identification of protected species and their products that can be used both in the field and at ports and inspection stations. This was expressed as a high priority, given that smugglers and traffickers were becoming increasingly more sophisticated in their methods of concealing and disguising illegal wildlife parts and products, but that the training of LE wildlife officials in identification training had not kept pace with the criminal network’s methods of smuggling these materials. One inspector stated that all they had received in their CITES training was a list of scientific names of plants and animals that were regulated under CITES, with no further identification aids. In addition, LE officials stated that they needed to have techniques at their disposal to more accurately determine where confiscated specimens ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 131 came from in order to know what laws were actually violated, as smugglers frequently obfuscated the origin of wildlife products in their possession. Related to this, two LE officials felt it would be especially useful for them to have a complete compendium of wildlife laws and regulations assembled in one document for them to be able to readily reference. Freeland is apparently in the process of compiling this. Freeland is currently developing a handheld electronic device that could greatly assist LE officials and port inspectors in their identification of protected species and products, including smuggling techniques. So, too, is a similar device developed by Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in China. Devices like these and other emerging technologies such as sniffer dogs and DNA technologies were felt by LE officials to be a potentially important tool and asset in identifying wildlife specimens. Specialized Marine Law Enforcement Training Most of Freeland’s and other agencies’ law enforcement and anti-trafficking efforts and training have been focusing on terrestrial environments. There has been a dearth of training on marine and coastal environments and the organizations and agencies (e.g., Navy, Coast Guard) working in these environments. So, too, is the diversity and complexity of the species involved: from marine mollusks and corals to sea turtles and aquarium fish, as well as terrestrial species and products such as hornbills, geckos, rhino horns, elephant ivory and pangolins that are involved in this trade, and the creative ways by which these products are disguised and hidden or misrepresented as to their place of origin. Marine enforcement officials who were interviewed stated that in addition to these areas serving as a source for marine and coastal species, the coastal waters are a major highway for the illegal wildlife trafficking of other products stretching from Africa to China. With thousands of square miles of open waters, small islands hidden from sight and exchanges of smuggled goods occurring between ships mostly at night, the marine LE community stated that it faced major challenges requiring specialized techniques, tools and training, from enforcement manuals to specialized equipment and patrol boats, a great deal of which is currently lacking. Marine LE officials also stated that relations between them and local coastal communities are not always the best, as small fishing villages are mostly under the control and jurisdiction of local officials or mayors, with absolute authority, while national agencies are more focused on waters outside the immediate coastal zone. Two NGOs that were interviewed indicated that local traditions and culture were important considerations in any attempt to control this trade in these coastal areas. Local traditions involving the consumption of indigenous wildlife, from sea turtle meat and eggs to birds and, of course, fish, are in their opinion not likely to be easily set aside in attempt to control the illegal trade of these species, and need to be dealt with in ways other than aggressive enforcement tactics. NGOs such as WCS have been working with communities to help them understand the issues at stake and the need to conserve their biological heritage for the long term and not just to seek short-term gains. 132ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Lao PDR and Myanmar: Urgent New Opportunities Responses from USG interviewees note that, to date, ARREST has not played any role in anti￾wildlife trafficking efforts that they are aware of in Lao PDR nor have these officials met with Freeland staff to discuss the ARREST program or to engage with authorities in Lao PDR. Though wildlife trafficking is of major concern in Lao PDR, as both a source and transit country, ARREST efforts in that country to date are characterized as little more than displaying of “nondescript” posters in the Vientiane airport. On a more positive note, a recent (July 2013) ASEAN-WEN coordination meeting between wildlife officials in Lao PDR and Thailand was held in Vientiane that may serve to improve cross-border anti-trafficking collaboration between these two countries. While Myanmar has been a long-time member of the ASEAN, its political relations with the U.S. have been closed until only recently, so, up until now, it has not been a part of the ARREST program. The opening of diplomatic relations between the two countries creates the opportunity for USAID/RDMA to include Myanmar as part of its ARREST program and for Freeland to start working in Myanmar on wildlife trafficking. Given its significance as a source and transit country, as well as the fact that Myanmar shares an extensive border with China, it has been pointed out by both government officials and NGOs that this is an excellent opportunity for collaboration on fighting cross-border wildlife crime. Transboundary Law Enforcement: Enhanced Coordination at the Provincial Level Protected area managers and rangers, as well as border officials, remarked that communication and responses between the more remote protected areas and the central government agencies under which they are located organizationally are often difficult, cumbersome and not very timely. The issues themselves are often felt to be of different priorities between the two levels of government—one at a local level and the other at an extremely high level, with the two levels being far removed from each other, thereby adding to potential misunderstandings. The local rangers and officials have found that in many instances it is easier and more efficient to deal with Provincial governments in matters of seeking financial, judicial or manpower assistance for dealing with wildlife crimes than it is with central government agencies. In those cases where cross-border wildlife trafficking is an issue, local LE officials felt that such issues could be more readily and efficiently handled between Provincial governors and officials on both sides of the border rather than by referring such matters to central government officials. Conclusions  Local community involvement: Most of the current LE training conducted by ARREST (Protect and Detect training) has been geared toward law enforcement officials who have come from the existing ranks of national and traditional law enforcement agencies, such as the national police, border patrol police, park and forest enforcement rangers, customs and excise officers, quarantine inspectors, coast guard and various enforcement managers. While this training has received high marks from its participants, there is still a long way to go with respect to providing adequate enforcement coverage over the entire region in combating wildlife crimes, particularly in so-called “hotspots” of biological ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 133 diversity, endangered species concentrations, and known areas of criminal activity that are likely to be the primary areas of poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking. Southeast Asia is a large geographic area in which most of the illicit activity is felt to be occurring in remote, rural areas, often far from law enforcement patrols. If properly trained and used, local community members in these distant and remote outposts could well serve as the eyes and ears of traditional law enforcement officials in helping to monitor any illegal activities that might be taking place there. The sheer number of community individuals that potentially could serve to monitor the resources in hotspots and to serve as a sort of auxiliary police force would in itself function as both a deterrent and a supplemental force in discouraging and preventing wildlife crimes from occurring in these rural and remote areas. As suggested by LE officials themselves, it is also an excellent opportunity for the LE community to reach out to community members and work with them to explain the value of preserving their biological heritage and how it is impacted by poaching. Likewise, several NGOs already working in these areas to provide environmental education and to conduct studies of wildlife populations could also play a role in supplementing LE officials in their duties through monitoring and surveillance, and also in training community members on the types and ways of collecting meaningful monitoring data on both illegal activities and wildlife occurrences. The use of both community members and NGOs in these para-enforcement activities should also provide opportunities for more access by women into the illegal wildlife/anti-trafficking program, as there are many roles that women can play effectively in this endeavor that do not necessarily require handling firearms or forays into jungle warfare, which has been the criticism of many in this male￾dominated domain.  Advanced wildlife identification training and technology: In order to determine the specifics of the legality of a wildlife trade situation that might be encountered during their duties, LE officials require precise identification means at their disposal both in the field and at border crossings, airports or seaports. These officials are frequently not just dealing with whole specimens of endangered species that can be readily identified by referencing standard field manuals, but most often parts or processed products that are harder to identify. In addition, many of these items are often disguised or hidden in other objects or clothing to avoid detection. Inspectors and officials are also faced with extraordinary difficulties in ascertaining exactly where—what country or area—a specimen was obtained in order to determine if it was illegally taken in contravention of local, national or international laws. For many LE officials, training and use of advanced technologies has simply not been available as an aid to the performance of their duties or has not kept pace with the sophisticated methods used by smugglers in illegal trade activities.  Specialized marine law enforcement training: The marine environments of the coastal archipelagos of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, composed of thousands of islands, many of which are quite remote, and contain long, irregular coastlines stretching for thousands of miles and are bounded by large expanses of open seas, present special challenges in both logistics and specimen identifications to LE officials in their pursuit of 134ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation wildlife trafficking in these regions. According to LE officials responsible for patrolling them, these areas, because of their unique situations, are particularly vulnerable to wildlife trafficking, especially in source and transit countries, for both terrestrial and marine species and products. LE training by Freeland and others has, up to now, been primarily focused on terrestrial environments and species, but with increasing use of the high seas and coastal waterways between islands by smugglers, there is an obvious need for more specialized marine LE training to be conducted in these regions. Still another challenge to LE officials is the fact that these coastal areas are peopled by subsistence fishing communities that are bound more by local laws and traditions than by national or international laws regulating marine wildlife.  Lao PDR and Myanmar: urgent new opportunities: Even though Lao PDR is known to be an extremely important area for wildlife trafficking in the region, there appears to be a disconnect between the USG in Lao PDR, who are anxious to become more involved in this issue, and the ARREST/Freeland program. This is a missed opportunity that deserves urgent attention. The opening of diplomatic relations with Myanmar also creates an important opportunity to work collaboratively with the government of Myanmar in fighting illegal wildlife trafficking.  Trans-border law enforcement—enhanced coordination at the provincial level: Increased emphasis on provincial-level trans-boundary law enforcement is expected to be more efficient and timely than the current system of involving central offices on both sides of the border. This hypothesis deserves to be first explored further and then tested. Recommendations Local Community Involvement  Include local communities as an important future focus of the ARREST program both in terms of providing law enforcement assistance and training and in providing awareness￾raising and environmental education that cultivates a stronger stewardship ethic among the community members in preventing wildlife crimes, particularly in rural hotspot areas. (Freeland)  Identify and prioritize hotspot areas throughout the region with the assistance of the ARREST program, and law enforcement officials directed to focus on these areas with the use of highly specialized and dedicated local units supplemented by local community auxiliary forces and NGOs. (National WENS, PCU, Freeland, USAID Bilateral Mission future programs) Advanced Wildlife Identification Training and Technology  Conduct advanced workshops in each country for officials and managers involved in combating wildlife crime—at ports, quarantine facilities, border crossings, protected areas and elsewhere—on the detailed identification of protected wildlife specimens, parts and products and on methods of their smuggling and concealment. This should include the use and provision of the latest technologies in identifying wildlife specimens and ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 135 products and smuggling techniques such as handheld electronic devices being developed by Freeland and others that can be instantly consulted by wildlife LE officials during the course of their duties in the field. (Freeland and partners, CITES authorities) Specialized Marine Law Enforcement Training  Develop specialized marine law enforcement training and tools, including tactical training and identification manuals; they should be developed and their use extended to coastal and marine waters and shorelines, especially in the island and coastal nations of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, where illegal wildlife trafficking is frequently conducted at sea or along the coast and between islands. (Freeland)  Conduct training on site in typical coastal/marine environments at one or more of the island nations and include the national navies, coast guard and marine LE agencies as well as U.S. agencies such as NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Coast Guard and Navy. (Freeland and partners)  Conduct a Marine SIG in one or more of the island nations that focuses specifically on marine enforcement and encourages networking between countries on coastal and marine wildlife trafficking issues. (Freeland and partners) Lao PDR and Myanmar: Urgent new opportunities  Initiate consultations with relevant parties in both Lao PDR and Myanmar to take advantage of the emerging opportunity to work with USG officials in these countries, as well as the national governments and NGOs such as WCS and WWF in fighting wildlife crime. (RDMA and Freeland)  If additional funding is required to support this expanded effort, explore options with relevant USG agencies (e.g., DoS/INL) and other partners. (RDMA) Trans-border law enforcement: enhanced coordination at the provincial level  Design and conduct a workshop on provincial level trans-border coordination with government agencies, including both central offices and provincial governments, from those ASEAN countries with significant border areas and high incidences of cross-border illegal wildlife trafficking. (Freeland with the PCU, USAID Bilateral Mission future programs)  Follow up with one or more pilot projects to test and strengthen province-level trans￾border cooperation (e.g., between Thailand and Lao PDR as follow-up to the 2nd Bilateral Meeting between Lao PDR and Thailand 24-27 July 2013 Vientiane, Lao PDR). (Freeland) 136ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation SUSTAINABILITY, PARTNERSHIPS AND LEARNING Discussion Looking forward, work on the ARREST sustainability objectives needs to focus on continuing to move forward on the two “key factors to sustainability” in the RDMA/Freeland Agreement that have not yet been achieved (i.e., institutionalizing capacity building and making task forces and their national and regional hubs permanent structures with permanent government budget lines). At the same time, expanded attention is needed to build and nurture partnerships that will serve as the strongest possible base for the work on illegal wildlife trafficking that will need to be continued across the region for many years beyond ARREST. These partnerships hold the key to sustainability, learning and shared ownership for ARREST moving forward: partnerships with ASEAN, with USAID projects, other USG initiatives, multilateral organizations and their programs, NGOs, Universities and private sector business groups. Conclusion Opportunities identified during key informant interviews and site visits include: ASEAN Key elements of an enhanced partnership with ASEAN include:  The ASEAN Secretariat: to take the lead in finding a new home for the ASEAN-WEN and the PCU that will give it increased visibility and political support and assured long-term funding. The considered view of the Evaluation Team is that moving under the tutelage of the Senior Officials on Transnational Crime and the Ministers to whom they report would be the preferred option. A synopsis of ASEAN’s organizational structure, where the ASEAN-WEN currently fits in this structure and the proposed new location is presented below.  The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA): to engage on the policy dimensions of the ARREST agenda including the urgent need for standardized national laws and regulations that integrate with international treaties. The AIPA/Freeland Letter of Cooperation signed in September 2012 was an important achievement as it provides the framework for moving forward.  The U.S. Mission to ASEAN: to provide political support as appropriate for the elements noted above. ASEAN Structure The three graphics below provide a context on finding a new home within ASEAN for the ASEAN-WEN Network and the PCU. ASEAN is made up of three communities: a Political-Security Community, an Economic Community and a Socio-Cultural Community. ASEAN-WEN is currently located in the Economic Community under the Ministers Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF); see Figure 5. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 137 Figure 5: ASEAN Community Within the Ministers Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry, ASEAN-WEN is located under the ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry (ASOF); see Figure 6. This buries it among work on medicinal plants, forest products, forest policy, timber certification and social forestry. The three other networks under the Ministers Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry (networks dealing with food safety, pesticide regulation and genetically modified food testing) have a higher profile, because they report directly to the Senior Officers Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry rather than through one of the sub-groups. It is the view of the Evaluation Team that this location for the ASEAN-WEN Network has been a critical constraint (potentially even a fatal flaw) in the design of the WEN system. 138ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Figure 6: AMAF Structure The AMMTC (see Figure 7) was established in 1997. The AMMTC coordinates the activities of relevant ASEAN bodies such as the ASEAN Senior Officials on Drug Matters and the ASEAN Chiefs of National Police. The eight priority areas currently covered by this group include counter-terrorism, trafficking in persons, illicit drug trafficking, money laundering, sea piracy, arm smuggling, international economic crime and cyber crime. A number of these have direct connections to wildlife trafficking and wildlife crime. USAID projects Opportunities for enhanced partnership with USAID projects include working with: ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 139  The Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment and Priority Setting (TRAPS) project: bring ARREST experience and expertise to bear on TRAPS Phase 1 (improving understanding of the status of and trends in illegal wildlife trade, with a particular focus on trade routes for threatened species trafficked between Africa and Asia) and Phase II (increasing international collaborations around actions to reduce and control illegal wildlife trade between Africa and Asia).  Project Predator: implemented by INTERPOL, with major funding from USAID.  Bilateral projects that either currently have or could have components working on wildlife trade (e.g., in Vietnam, follow-on to the Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI)- implemented Star Plus/Support for Trade Acceleration project).22 Figure 7: ASEAN Political-Security Community Other USG initiatives Opportunities to leverage other USG initiatives may include: 22 In cases where ARREST works with USAID bilateral projects (e.g., the Indonesia Forest and Climate Support (IFACS) project in Indonesia or the new trade development project in Vietnam), consideration should be given to developing a formal tripartite MOU with the relevant host country Ministry. Officials at the Ministry of Forestry in Indonesia proposed this as a way to clarify the distinction between several USAID-funded forestry and climate change projects and ARREST. 140ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation  US-China relations: attention to WL trade at the highest levels. For the first time ever, the Administrator of China’s SFA was invited to join the annual US/China Economic & Security Dialogue (E&SD) this year. This is seen as clear recognition by both sides of the importance of wildlife trade issues. It is anticipated that SFA will be included in future E&SD deliberations. This may provide ARREST with opportunities to work with Environment, Science, Technology and Health (ESTH) officers in Bangkok and Beijing to provide analysis and lessons learned as input into this process.  Bilateral Free Trade agreements and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The U.S. has signed bilateral Free Trade agreements with ASEAN countries, most recently Vietnam. Have wildlife trafficking concerns been taken into account? If not, ARREST is ideally suited to do the requisite policy analysis and pass recommendations through appropriate USG and ASEAN government channels. Multilateral organizations and programs Opportunities for enhanced partnership with multilateral organizations:  Explore joint programs with the GTI, starting with a proposed “Global Support Programme on Demand Reduction” if the program is funded by the World Bank and other GTI partners.  Advise USAID and the USG on steps that could reinvigorate the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime (ICCWC)—made up of the CITES Secretariat, INTERPOL, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Bank and the World Customs Organization. The ICCWC should take the lead in building a coherent multilateral institutional framework to combat wildlife crime.  Use Freeland’s existing membership in the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT) to explore possible program linkages and funding possibilities with Government Partners Australia, Canada, India and the UK. NGOs Opportunities for enhanced partnership with NGOs active in wildlife trade issues:  Invite The Nature Conservancy (TNC)/China to join the Wildlife Trade Coalition.  Learn from TRAFFIC (Vietnam and China) about their new BCC-led approach to demand reduction.  Work with WCS (Vietnam and China) on policy analysis and market monitoring. Universities As discussed in the section on youth below, student groups at universities across the region can be powerful agents of social change both in their own right and through the influence they can exert on parents and other family members. Working either directly or indirectly through partners with these groups should prove to be a cost-effective way of reducing current and, more importantly, future demand for illicit wildlife products. ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 141 Business groups There are opportunities for enhanced partnerships with business groups interested in wildlife trade issues for environmental, corporate social responsibility or other reasons. Activate the Advisory Board to leverage public-private partners that was included as a “lasting asset and legacy” in the RDMA/Freeland Cooperate Agreement. Recommendations  Increase the attention and resources devoted to ARREST partnerships in ways that promote sustainability, learning and shared ownership, thereby building the strongest possible base for USG support of Asia’s efforts to reduce and eliminate wildlife trafficking for the remaining years of the program and beyond. Provide additional funding for this if needed and amend the RDMA/Freeland Cooperative Agreement to reflect this and other changes. (Freeland, RDMA, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group)  Advocate for the review of the ASEAN-WEN and the PCU’s location in the overall ASEAN structure. This includes supporting the sovereign decision-making processes and protocols of ASEAN leadership in exploring options that will give the network the higher visibility and increased political and financial support it must have to become more fully effective and sustainable. The considered view of the Evaluation Team is that moving from the Economic Community under the Senior Officials on Forestry to the Political-Security Community under the tutelage of the SOMTC and the AMMTC to whom they report would be the preferred option. Promote the exploration of alternative and diverse sources for PCU financial support until financial sustainability through ASEAN and the ASEAN-WEN Sustainability Plan can be achieved. (RDMA, Freeland, USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group, U.S. Mission to ASEAN with the ASEAN Secretariat) YOUTH AS A CROSSCUTTING THEME: ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION Discussion Interviews in several countries suggested that proactively engaging with youth, both at the university and primary/secondary school levels, could assist ARREST in meeting its objectives both in law enforcement and demand reduction. Informants noted that young people are innovative and creative in problem solving and in finding new solutions to old problems. Young people’s enthusiasm for protecting and preventing wildlife crimes can be seen, for example, through the growing numbers of youth activists and youth organizations focusing their activities on the issue of environment, nature and wildlife conservations across the globe— groups such as the Youth for Conservation Forum, Youth Group Wildlife Watch or Young Zoologist Association. Using social media like Facebook, youth groups are spreading information and promoting the protection of wildlife. The Internet and other social networking 142ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation “Young people are creating a movement for social change. They are brimming with energy waiting to be transformed into positive social action. Are we paying attention to what they have to say and supporting what they want to achieve?.... Much like young people from previous generations, they want to shake up the status quo. But there is something different about the young people of our time. Is it that they have unprecedented access to information, increasing their exposure to diverse systems and values? Is it that they are more aware of their rights? Is it that the Internet and social media offer the possibility to be generators of opinion? Probably it’s a combination of all these factors. The truth of the matter is that youth want their voices to be heard and to be taken into account. They won’t settle for theories or unfulfilled promises. They are demanding a space at the decision￾making table and they want action.” Source: Corina Villacorta1 media can also be used by youth to discover wildlife crimes and discuss ways to more effectively combat it. ARREST has been supporting some work in this area. Earlier this year, ARREST partner IFAW trained students at Tianjin University in China on online wildlife trade investigation methods and encouraged them to use what they had learned to continue monitoring the online trade of illegal wildlife products and provide law enforcement with tips on what they found. A USG-supported program (GLOBE—Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the Environment http://www.globe.gov/) that is active in Thailand working through the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) (http://globethailand.ipst.ac.th/), is expanding into Vietnam and has done some regional training of trainers. The GLOBE program could be a cost-effective way of introducing ASEAN youth to wildlife trafficking issues. Conclusions Students and student groups at universities across the region are powerful agents of social change both in their own right and through the influence they can exert on parents and other family members. Primary and secondary school students are quick to absorb lessons from both their teachers and their peers. During these younger years, many develop strong, empathetic connections with animals. Inserting information about the wildlife trade and its negative impacts on animals into curricula in far-flung parts of the globe as part of broader environmental education programs is expected to have important payoffs down the road. Recommendations  Follow-up on the IFAW training for university students on online wildlife trade investigation with additional courses in China and across the ASEAN region. (Freeland)  Explore with RDMA and Embassy/ESTH the possibility of Freeland designing a curriculum on wildlife trafficking for the GLOBE program, focused initially on Southeast Asia. Once this is established, there may be scope to include lessons from Southeast Asia in a broader global curriculum. (USG/Bangkok Wildlife Working Group, Freeland) ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 143 ANNEX VII: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 144ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation Report 145 146ARREST Mid-Term Evaluation U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523