Recording: Designing Effective 'Follow the Money' Projects to Counter Wildlife Crime

This webinar presents the findings of an independent study by RUSI, commissioned by NIRAS on behalf of the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), to fill this evidence gap. The study drew on analysis of 21 IWTCF projects with a follow-the-money element and interviews with 24 practitioners and experts. It looks at where these interventions have delivered, from the creation of multi-agency taskforces to landmark money laundering convictions and asset forfeitures, and where they have encountered obstacles.

In the webinar we discussed the following:

• What is the potential for ‘follow the money’ strategies to drive transformational change?
• What have projects with a ‘follow the money’ element achieved, and where have they encountered obstacles?
• Which factors set successful projects apart, and what are the signs that a project may not deliver?
• How can project implementers manage derailment risk?
• What are the most effective ways of measuring success?

The webinar aimed to provide key insights to practitioners seeking to design follow-the-money initiatives, as well as improve donor understanding of how such interventions can bring about meaningful change.

Speakers

Anne-Marie Weeden, RUSI Senior Associate Fellow, independent consultant
Jennifer Scotland, RUSI Research Fellow

Over the past 10 years, there has been increased recognition of the potential of using ‘follow the money’ approaches – the use of financial investigations, anti-money laundering tools and asset recovery – to disrupt the upper echelons of wildlife trafficking networks and their corrupt facilitators, where other enforcement strategies have limited impact.

As such, funders have sought to support initiatives that build capacity in this area. For example, around 15% of the UK government’s Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund (IWTCF) programming has included a follow-the-money element since the fund’s inception in 2014. Despite this, until now there has been limited systematic evidence on what works and what doesn’t in programming to date.