The IWT 2018 London Conference – Call-to-action or Circus?

What’s the collective noun for the mass of governments, politicians, international organizations, agencies, research bodies, businesses, NGOs, conservationists, technicians, scientists, lawyers, military personnel, donors, celebrities and media that have, in recent years, rallied round the subject of “illegal wildlife trade”?

Having attended the recent conference in London, it is hard to come up with a more suitable word than ‘industry’. As that is what this seems to have become. And it is an absolute juggernaut of an industry, with a bandwagon element which seems to sweep more and more onboard as it trundles relentlessly forward.

I need to be up-front about the fact that I only attended the first day, and morning of the second, so I am prepared to be advised that I missed something utterly amazing towards the end of the conference. Plus, the following are purely my own impressions of the event. Other participants will inevitably have seen it in a very different light.

Looking around the Battersea Park venue, one could not help wondering what the 1,000+ participants were worth, in terms of salaries, budgets, projects, donations etc etc etc. It must be the most incredible amount.

Which then begs the questions, ‘What is this industry producing?’ and ‘Are its products reducing illegal wildlife trade?’. The former is readily-identifiable (especially as large parts of the industry delight in telling you what they’re up to and take every opportunity to do so), whilst the latter is much more difficult to assess. If one were a shareholder in the industry, I suspect one might struggle to determine whether a good return is resulting from the investment.

The IWT London 2018 conference was not, however, a shareholders’ meeting. I don’t think anyone dared ask what the dividends following the previous shareholders’ events (in 2014, 2015 and 2016) had been. Which is probably why the “Administration Note”, received by participants, and providing registration details, agenda, etc., was addressed to ‘stakeholders’ and ‘partners’. Maybe that was intended to give a sense of ownership, whilst discouraging a too close inspection of the company records – not that any were presented, of course.

As it happens, the shareholder meetings of 2015 and 2016 had incorporated an element where the national divisions of the industry were expected to provide a report on their achievements/profits – but no such exercise was undertaken this time around. Consequently, shareholders were left to determine for themselves whether the output justified the input, be that finance (actual) or political will (alleged).

There are, arguably, two major potential and principal beneficiaries of all this industry’s efforts.

The first are endangered species. Perhaps fortunately, for the industry, they were unable to attend in person. Many of them couldn’t make it to London because: they were decomposing in some national park or game reserve; they had been converted into traditional medicine ingredients; their skins or skulls are pinned in a decorative fashion on some wall; they have been logged and shipped to a different continent accompanied by corruptly-issued CITES permits; or they have been ground up and swallowed to stave off a hangover. They were, instead, represented in umpteen posters, leaflets and videos. One large representation of an elephant’s head, mounted on a wall of the bizarrely-titled ‘Stakeholder Theatre’, had the figure of a naked man standing between its tusks. I think it was a man – ‘he’ did not have any genitals. I recall someone saying that this sculpture, standing at over two metres in height, had apparently been driven all the way from Spain in the back of a pickup truck. I wonder how many motorists had driven onto the verge, or into the car in front, their attention having been diverted by this oddity?

But there was absolutely no shortage of people claiming to speak on behalf of at-risk species. These individuals, following what appears to have become something of a tradition or expectation at such events, pledged to ensure that the offspring of all these fauna and flora will still be around, in years to come, to be seen by the counterpart offspring of the conference delegates and, especially, of the speaker him/herself.

I imagine endangered species must find such commitments very reassuring. Although I also imagine that the majority of them, if asked for their opinion, would probably prefer not to be seen (particularly by hordes of tourists in 4×4 vehicles) and would, more likely, tell humans to just bugger off and leave them alone. After all, they were doing very nicely, thank you, until Homo sapiens came along.

The second ‘consumers’ or ‘clients’ of the industry, notable by their absence, were the law enforcers. Cleverly and cunningly, they’d been corralled in another part of the UK’s capital city, participating in a meeting of the INTERPOL Wildlife Crime Working Group. Their mere presence in London was, though, claimed by some as indicating their participation in the conference. To be fair, there were a few (very few) governmental or intergovernmental law enforcement officials in the conference venue but hardly any of them were allowed anywhere near a microphone.

The CITES Chief of Enforcement was there – weren’t his views worth listening to? Further, not a single person from the CITES Secretariat appeared on the list of speakers. Ladies and gentlemen, the CITES Convention establishes the legal basis for responding to wildlife crime. It may have its faults or shortcomings, but it is the best game in town, and has been since 1975. I am dumfounded that the Convention was ignored in such a fashion.

(As an aside, many congratulations to Ivonne Higuero following her appointment as the new Secretary-General of CITES.)

Yes, some Rangers participated in a specific session but one couldn’t help feeling (and I truly mean this in the nicest possible way and with absolutely no disrespect whatsoever) that they were almost token representatives of the enforcement community.

I appreciate events of this nature tend to be something of a ‘group hug’ and that everyone wishes to be supportive, encouraging and motivational. But a case, indeed a strong case, can also be made for using the opportunity to hold people, and nations, to account. The stench of hypocrisy wafted around the venue from time to time. It is all very well being restrained and diplomatic but some things do not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. The mere fact that this was the fourth such conference, adopting a declaration very similar to those signed up to previously, speaks volumes. Just how much political will and stoking of boilers is needed to make meaningful forward progress?

CITES, its CoPs and its Standing Committee, are being left holding the ball far too much when it comes to addressing the thorny subject of implementation and compliance. As I have said many times before, not only is CITES a questionable forum to effectively discuss crime-related matters, many of those matters are wholly domestic in nature, a realm which the drafters of the Convention believed to be outside its scope.

What was new in 2018?

Now, please don’t get me wrong, I applaud what has been done, and is being done, to raise the profile of wildlife crime and trafficking. How could I do otherwise, since I spent two decades of my life doing just that, in both my homeland and at international levels? But I think that also entitles me to question, and adopt a not unhealthy degree of cynicism, when I look around me at what is currently happening.

Let’s start by examining the Declaration which emerged from the 2018 event. It is full of fine words and worthy ideals and goals. But try comparing it against what emerged from the first (also London) conference in 2014, the 2015 event in Botswana, or the last time everyone got together, in Vietnam in 2016. I defy you to find truly meaningful differences between any of these documents or anything startlingly new in the latest.

Indeed, from first to most-recent, the majority of issues identified are what some of us started to flag up in the late 1990s, long before ‘illegal wildlife trade’ became flavour-of-the-month. It is the, essentially wasted, years in between that cause me the most frustration.

Before I move on, please let’s stop using the word ‘trade’. This is not a trade issue. It is crime. Constantly referring to trade has very negative implications. One of the most important is that it discourages the Police from engaging. The Police don’t see trade as an issue which is relevant to them. When I wore a Police uniform in the far-distant past, I wouldn’t have either. And I know the vast majority of the public don’t want their Bobbies to get bogged down in regulating trade. Allow me to give two examples to illustrate where I’m coming from.

Narcotics trafficking can certainly be described, accurately and legalistically, as a form of illicit trade. However, in the days when I was a Detective, I didn’t lock up drug dealers because they engaged in illicit trade, I slammed cell doors behind them because they were criminals.

On the other hand, Customs (the other vital element in law enforcement responses to wildlife crime) definitely view trade as relevant to them. To continue my word-choice theme though, many years ago, a UN Environment Programme official voiced his frustration to me over the difficulty he was experiencing in obtaining Police buy-in to a major programme which UNEP had launched. It was, and is, called ‘Green Customs’. “Why”, he asked me, ”aren’t the cops keen to engage?” I pointed out that the answer was in the title.

This may seem puerile, but it reflects the reality of life. Selecting the appropriate phraseology has very considerable repercussions when it comes to influencing law enforcement priorities.

Getting the message across

It is perfectly reasonable to claim that the central themes, of all four IWT conference Declarations and Statements, deserve to be reinforced. London 2018 most certainly did that.

There were many impressive speakers, whether that was Prime Minister May (albeit by video), the UK’s Foreign Secretary, three Presidents from Africa, or the multitude of presenters and panel members at subject-specific sessions. Speaking of ‘sessions’, it was particularly impressive that the USA’s delegation was headed by its Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and his speech was definitely worth listening to. His presence sent a clear message, to my mind.

It was an effective call-to-arms because of the position he holds. Law enforcers are much more likely to pay attention to words uttered by the most senior official of what may be the world’s largest Department of Justice. It would help, however, if the message was actually communicated directly to them (see above comments re their absence). The Attorney General’s speech referred to another first-rate example provided by the US – that of ‘embedding’ Special Agents from its Fish and Wildlife Service in several areas of the developing world, to train, offer guidance to, support, and mentor their local opposite numbers.

By way of comparison, I’m not sure how inspired the cops and Customs of the world would have been by the UN Environment Goodwill Ambassadors – neither of whom had I ever heard of before; but then I’m an out-of-touch boring old fart.

However, whoever is delivering the message must ensure that it is fresh and tells us something new. Regrettably, there was a considerable amount of preaching to the converted throughout the conference.

First-timers at the event might have got the impression that the financial crime elements of wildlife trafficking had only recently been noticed and much was made of the establishment of a Wildlife Financial Taskforce. I welcome that too. What frustrated and annoyed me was that next-to-no reference was made to the fact that HRH Prince Charles created an expert group, to examine this very theme, back in 2014. What’s more, that group prepared a detailed report, incorporating recommendations, which was submitted to, and considered by, the Kasane IWT conference in 2015. Is institutional memory loss a problem for the IWT conference community?

What is especially reprehensible about the way this was handled, in my view, was the fact that the chairwoman of the expert group (Claudia A. McMurray) was present at the Battersea Park event but received none of the plaudits she so richly deserves. Neither did Prince Charles, though he never sought to kudos from the work of the group or his initiative in creating it.

Several subsequent media reports on this part of the conference quoted a speaker who used Al Capone as an example of follow-the-money. As it happens, I have often used the Chicago mobster to demonstrate my conviction that we must be more imaginative and innovative when it comes to using non-wildlife-related legislation to bring offenders to book. However, in ‘Scarface’s’ case, The Untouchables didn’t follow the money, as there wasn’t any. That was the whole point – Capone was jailed for failing to pay income tax. Alongside fresh and new, messages ought to be accurate.

A message which deserves to be communicated more loudly is the diversity of species being trafficked. One of the several UK Ministers who spoke at the conference emphasized, quite rightly, that illegal logging and timber trade results in considerably more criminal profit than elephants, rhinos, pangolins or tigers. IUU fishing also warrants greater attention. Timber and fresh/saltwater fish are, in terms of the CITES definition, wildlife and we must never forget that.

Chatham House made a nice job of highlighting linkages between illegal ‘timber’ and ‘wildlife’ trade, following on from a workshop their experts had convened the previous month. All the Royal Institute of International Affairs has to do now is substitute ‘crime’ for ‘trade’ in future. It is a shame that the Declaration missed the opportunity to emphasize fish- and timber-related crime, which it only mentions in passing.

I enjoyed the session on demand reduction, where some really interesting observations were made about how to get messages across.

Who should deliver the message?

Aside from the observations I made earlier, it is vital that the message is front-and-centre. Unfortunately, too often for my ears, the message was accompanied (and at risk of being drowned out) by far too much self-congratulatory, back-slapping, ego-massaging, self-promotion. Some people, particularly those representing commercial arms of the IWT industry, would do well to remember that it is their, often legal but most certainly moral, duty to assist in preventing and combating crime. Don’t stand up and expect applause for doing your job. Especially as large sectors of commerce did absolutely nothing for decades until the accusatory finger started to swing in their direction.

Readers with a critical eye may have noticed that, among the several speakers I have named or referred to, one is missing – His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge. Let me plug that gap now.

I am prompted to do so, not because of how he participated in the IWT event but, rather, because of some media articles which emerged around the same time. Some of what is written in these articles is just plain daft. Do commentators seriously believe that Prince William designs any promotional videos he appears in or personally chooses who is featured alongside him?

But that was not what really infuriated me. Several press pieces quoted an individual saying, to back up his complaint that the Prince waltzed into Kenya to tell conservationists what to do, “He couldn’t do that in education, banking or other fields…”

Well, as it happens, he can and he has. Back in December 2014, I praised the Prince (not that he would have cared a jot) for his address to a gathering of 300 anti-corruption officials from around the world, hosted by the World Bank, where he highlighted the major role corruption plays in wildlife crime and trafficking. Presumably the audience that day did not all have white faces. So, the conservationist, and those quoting him, are wrong on two counts. The old saying, ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’ is wise advice on many occasions.

That said, there were an awful lot of white faces among the speakers, presenters and panel members at IWT 2018. Some came terribly close to talking-down to their audience. But hangovers from colonial days, imbalances between research institutes, resources, skills etc., in the developed and developing worlds, stretch across far more fields and subjects than conservation and combating wildlife crime. Once you start pointing fingers, the targets are limitless and, in terms of communication, cooperation, coordination and collaboration (which is surely what we all want), little will be gained. Some people might also regard it as rather disingenuous to comment upon the colour of well-intentioned supporters’ faces whilst at the same time apparently having no problem with the colour of their money.

Despite the concerns I may hold about the industry itself, I have high regard for what the UK Government has done regarding the IWT conferences. One must never forget that wildlife crime and trafficking, in the great scheme of things, is of relatively little significance to Britain. Despite what some people might have you believe, it is not a major consumer of illegal-origin fauna and flora; in global terms. Neither are its citizens major players when it comes to poaching, illegal harvesting, smuggling or dealing. I dread to think what its support to the IWT conference process has cost. And, in case you haven’t watched television or read a newspaper recently, UK politicians have a rather important, and increasingly urgent, matter to resolve at the moment. One only wishes that they could all get together in a consensus similar to their attitude to combating fauna and flora crimes.

Even someone as cynical as me has to admire Teresa May for taking the time to record an opening video message for the IWT conference. But maybe she was glad, albeit very briefly, to escape from thoughts of Brexit and slip out of the stab-proof body armour she presumably dons each day to protect herself from her parliamentary colleagues.

Some final thoughts

I understand, and I hope this is correct, that 2018 may have been the last jamboree for the industry, at least on such a scale. Please do focus on getting on with the job now. Turn all the pledges into results.

If you must convene another, please avoid silly errors. For instance, do not hand out evaluation forms that still contain track-changes-type editorial comments – especially if one remark almost calls into question the value of the forms. Plus, if one of the session coordinators indicates in its own publicity that a speaker’s identity “cannot be publicly disclosed for security reasons”, it may be best not to then name that person in the Conference Programme. (Mind you, since we all know, for example, who the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are, trying to keep that person’s identity secret was a bit silly too.) In any case, I’m the only person who has the right to be masked.

Additionally, if the individual holding the post of Foreign Secretary during the planning stages of a conference decides to resign that position, either for purposes of political principle or to jockey for prime ministerial selection, tell security not to let him gate-crash the evening drinks reception and engage in an impromptu speech.

I realize drafting the agenda for such an event must be an absolute nightmare and that organizers have to work around the capacity of a venue, but the 2018 conference probably packed too much into the two days. If you want to get messages across, the audience must be provided with opportunities to listen to them. Too many sessions ran in parallel, so that one struggled to decide which to attend. Some, potentially fascinating ones, were held in an area where one had to wear headphones to hear the speakers and panel, so that one couldn’t simply stand at the side or back, as one normally would if all the chairs were occupied. To give you some idea of the scale, the speakers’ list in the programme ran to nine pages and listed over 160 individuals!

So that the UK government doesn’t get the impression I like everything it does – take your focus off the military. I realize sending British Army personnel to train anti-poaching staff in Africa may seem like a good idea but that reeks of colonialism too. In any case, African game scouts, rangers and wardens have been patrolling the bush and savannah, demonstrating incredible bravery and dedication, and intercepting and detaining poachers, for one hell of a lot longer than our squaddies and could undoubtedly teach them a thing or two. On second thoughts, ignore what I’ve just written, maybe it’ll be a good learning opportunity for our troops.

However, if you truly want to demonstrate that wildlife trafficking is a serious crime and wish to help build capacity, send some National Crime Agency advisors to biodiversity hotspots and let them mentor their counterparts and train others.

Lastly, it was a great pleasure to meet numerous individuals with whom I interacted during my CITES days. The spotlight of attention fell on relatively few of them during the conference and yet they are the people who have, often over decades, worked tirelessly to defend our Earth’s wondrous natural resources and to assist, in a variety of ways, the bringing to justice of those who criminally exploit them. It is personally satisfying to be aware that a not inconsiderable number of them share some of the observations in this blog. But many of them cannot voice that publicly. Endangered species would be considerably fewer in number without their ceaseless efforts.

Occasionally, some of them get the attention they deserve – such as Debbie Banks of EIA, who was presented with an award by Prince William shortly before the conference, recognizing her excellent work, over many years, to preserve tiger populations. (I really must stop mentioning members of the British Royal Family!)

To the hangers-on, and there were a few wandering around the venue, all I can say is go find something better to do.

I was also delighted to be told by several people that they like what I write, whether in my book, opinion pieces, or here on LinkedIn. I realize I do not post as regularly these days, so hopefully this extra-long blog will make up for it.

Allow me to leave you with a mental image. I picture some modern-day Al Capone, Mr Big or Mafia head-of-family. He’s reclining at the end of the day, having laundered the week’s profits, and is enjoying a glass of fine single Malt whisky. He has dispatched his Capo to buy the newspapers and to download the IWT London 2018 Declaration. His trusty captain enters the room and tells the Don that he has read everything about the event.

“Anything for us to worry about?”, asks the boss.

---