The first step of the analysis is to assess if the project is applying one or more OH principles within its scope of work. Seven OH principles, adapted from the literature, are used in the framework (i.e., multisectoral, transdisciplinary, participation, prevention, decentralisation, evidence-based, multi-scalar). Not all principles in the framework have equal value, with the multisectoral principle considered an essential component in the proposed tool. The reason for this is that the basis of One Health is the collaboration among different sectors. The framework allows multisectoral collaborations at any level, for example where an MoU has been signed between ministries, or at community level through the joint effort of village health workers, animal health volunteers and rangers.
Refer to the provided definitions of each principle to ensure a correct understanding of its meaning in reference to the analysis framework
Review the project simply by looking for the mere application of principles and avoid jumping to quick conclusions regarding the adoption of the One Health approach
A quick scan of the project gives insight into the project’s current state. If the project already applies one or more OH principles, there are immediate opportunities to design and plan a One Health component within its scope of work. However, failure to apply even a single principle does not prevent the One Health approach to be implemented, nor does it imply that the framework analysis has to stop. The quick scan of the project will help to clarify what principles need to be explored and included to successfully implement a One Health approach.
Once formed, a review team will lead the analysis of the project and the potential integration of the One Health approach. It is key to initiate a discussion across sectors, identify opportunities of collaboration among stakeholders, and enable the co-design of One Health components that align with and push the project goals towards a holistic approach to the biodiversity-health nexus. The review team is multidisciplinary and should be made up of all the project owners, including institutional and development partners.
Multidisciplinary composition of the review team, including experts from different sectors (e.g., conservation, animal health, human health, education, social science)
Transdisciplinary composition of the review team, including experts from different levels of intervention and with different roles (e.g., researchers, policymakers, service providers, community members)
External assessors can greatly contribute and amplify the outcomes of the project analysis at the biodiversity-health nexus. They can guide the project team through the analysis process providing a fresh and independent perspective to the project analysis. External assessors should have some sort of experience in multisectoral collaborations and One Health to guide the review team in the project analysis and identification of opportunities to integrate a more holistic approach.
Forensic accounting for wildlife trafficking interdiction
Photo courtesy of Harun Guclusoy/UNDP
Trainings
Wildlife crime is not purely a conservation issue, as its adverse impacts also threaten sustainable development, good governance, rule of law, and national security.
The aim of this building block is to identify the risks and vulnerabilities of money laundering and how it relates to wildlife crimes. Additionally, this building block endeavours to provide guidance and recommendations to law enforcement and related personnel to enhance the financial aspect of wildlife crime investigations.
Fraudulent paperwork can transform wildlife contraband into seemingly legitimate merchandise, enabling it to be openly traded and evade interdiction. There are many schemes that criminals use to create fraudulent wildlife paperwork, including false declarations of captive breeding, purchasing paperwork from corrupt officials, forging paperwork, re-using or altering old permits, etc. Forensic accounting is therefore an important building block
Transnational organised crime is found wherever money can be made from illicit dealings, and well-organised criminal groups have turned illegal exploitation of wildlife into a professional business with lucrative revenues. Criminal groups exploit gaps in legislation, law enforcement and the criminal justice system; and the generally weak legislation and inadequate law enforcement in wildlife protection has enabled wildlife criminal groups to flourish. Forensic accounting allows practitioners to close these gaps and bolster wildlife protection.
In order to capitalise on enhanced forensic accounting, complementary legislation should enable wildlife crime to be considered a predicate offence for money laundering, so that anti-money laundering tools can be used. Governments should review their criminal legislation to ensure that law enforcement agencies are fully authorised to follow the financial flows related to wildlife crime and to prosecute money laundering offences.
Domestic multi-agency cooperation should be common practice for wildlife crimes, involving police, customs, environmental authorities, Financial Investigation Units (FIUs), prosecutors, and other relevant domestic agencies for sharing information, intelligence, and conducting joint investigations where appropriate. Joint investigative teams which include FIUs are essential to target criminal networks and not just low-level offenders, and have long been used successfully to address other serious crime types.
