Zoological Society of London in Nepal Learning Questions Addressed: • What are examples of institutional arrangements, such as dedicated units or embed programs, that improved the capacity of enforcement or prosecution staff? • What are some successful examples of partnerships used to deliver competency-building activities, and what made them work? The Government of Nepal has supported community rights over natural resources by devolving management rights of one-third of the nation’s forests. With four years of zero rhino poaching occurring between 2011 and 2017, Nepal is considered a model for the community management of forests. The country is home to more than 18,000 Community Forest User Groups that have contributed to the increase of forest cover. USAID has been a strong partner to the Government of Nepal by supporting community-based approaches to conservation through projects like WWF’s Hariyo Ban.
Summary
In Nepal, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) works to build and strengthen enforcement capacity and coordination to combat wildlife trafficking through a series of nested partnerships with government (the Department of Forests and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation), non-governmental organizations (the National Trust for Nature Conservation and Himalayan Nature), and local communities. This approach supports targeted policy interventions and innovative conservation technology as well as the development of Community-Based Anti-Poaching Units, anti-poaching Rapid Response Units, and the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) approach to protected area management and patrol-based monitoring.
Problem
ZSL worked closely with Nepal’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation to identify gaps in wildlife law enforcement capacity. Together, they identified three specific gaps and a wider need to improve coordination. First, outside of patrolled protected areas, the capacity to identify and respond to poaching was limited. Second, within protected areas, patrolling was often partial, with uneven coverage in time and space and a lack of prioritization and adaptability. The final gap was an inability to respond to identified poaching events in real time, either to prevent them or to apprehend perpetrators. Beyond these specific gaps was a wider need to enhance the communication of vital information across levels and actors combating wildlife trafficking.
Zoological Society of London | Combating Wildlife Trafficking Case Study | Page 1
Photo credit: Zoological Society of London
Combating Wildlife Trafficking Case Study: Partnerships