Network Formalisation and the CAR-WEN Memorandum of Understanding

29 Apr

At its core, the CAR-WEN Working Group exists to help build a functioning regional Wildlife Enforcement Network in the Wider Caribbean. Doing that well means turning shared concern about wildlife crime and enforcement gaps into more durable governance instruments that can support long-term impact, scale, and sustainability. Among these, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (En | Es | Fr) now under development is currently the most important, serving as an initiating document for the establishment and operation of the network.

Why Initiating Instruments Matter for WENs

Wildlife Enforcement Networks generally need formal initiating instruments because they are meant to coordinate action across multiple agencies, jurisdictions, and institutional cultures over time. A WEN can begin with shared concern and productive dialogue, but if it is to mature into a durable regional mechanism, it usually needs a clearer statement of purpose, participation, governance, and intended cooperation. That is one reason WENs so often develop around an agreement, statute, MOU, declaration, terms of reference, or some combination of these.

Variety in initiating instruments is visible across the wider WEN field. The Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) operates based on the Lusaka Agreement, a treaty expressly directed at strengthening regional enforcement cooperation against illegal trade in wild fauna and flora. The South Asian Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN) has operated through the SAWEN Statute agreed by participating governments. The South American Wildlife Enforcement Network (SudWEN) has been built upon the São Paulo Declaration and the SudWEN Terms of Reference. The Network for Observance and Application of Wildlife Regulations in Central America and the Dominican Republic (ROAVIS), meanwhile, operates through the MOU to establish ROAVIS. Similarly, ICCWC’s Guidelines for WENs do not prescribe a single model, but they do make clear that governance, membership, support arrangements, financing, and network deliverables are central to whether a WEN becomes a useful and lasting institution.

The point of mentioning these examples is not to suggest one institutional model might be better than another, but rather to show that serious networks usually need some formal initiating basis. Without some agreed reference point for network governance, a WEN may still generate useful meetings and relationships, but it can remain fragile, difficult to scale, and difficult to sustain across changes in leadership, funding, and political attention.

Why and How the CAR-WEN Is Developing an MOU

The CAR-WEN Working Group is developing an MOU because earlier regional decisions and workshops already pointed toward the need for a formal initiating instrument for a Caribbean Wildlife Enforcement Network. This includes a 2016 workshop in The Bahamas and a 2017 workshop in Barbados, which helped shape the concept of a Caribbean Wildlife Enforcement Network and produced early draft materials. In that sense, the draft CAR-WEN MOU is not a new idea, but a renewed and more deliberate effort to give regional cooperation on wildlife enforcement a clearer and more durable foundation.

The current draft has been built through an iterative process rather than a single drafting event. As detailed in the technical note to the draft MOU (En | Es | Fr), the current text has been developed iteratively through presentations, consultation, and revision involving focal points from 25 participating governments, together with supporting regional experts and multilateral and non-governmental stakeholders. The Working Group is now seeking to refine and finalise the MOU through at least two rounds of formal review with potential member governments as well as other interested governments and non-governmental stakeholders. This has meant outreach to 47 governments and more than 70 multilateral organisations, non-governmental organisations, scientific institutions, and other relevant stakeholders.

In short, we are engaging in an MOU process for long-term legitimacy. If a governance instrument is going to carry real regional meaning, governments need a genuine opportunity to shape it before it is treated as settled. Supporting civil society and technical actors also need meaningful avenues to improve it. A Caribbean governance instrument should not feel like a generic imported template, but instead reflect regional realities, regional priorities, and the actual institutional conditions under which cooperation will need to operate.

What the Draft MOU Is Designed to Do

Today, the Working Group has a robust draft MOU (En | Es | Fr) under first-round review by relevant and interested stakeholders, and a second-round review is anticipated later this year. As an MOU, the draft constitutes a voluntary, non-legally binding instrument for enhanced regional cooperation on wildlife enforcement in the Wider Caribbean. It is not a treaty, and it is not intended to displace existing national or international legal instruments. Instead, it is meant to complement existing commitments and provide a more structured regional basis for coordinated action against wildlife crime.

At a broad level, the current MOU seeks to perform three kinds of functions.

First, the draft MOU defines the network’s basic identity by setting out its purpose, vision, mission, and values. For instance, the MOU sets out core values that the network will seek to protect and promote, including biodiversity conservation, animal welfare, human well-being, public health, and the rule of law.

Second, it defines the main areas of regional cooperation that the CAR-WEN is to support. This includes information sharing, joint enforcement actions, capacity building, harmonisation of policies and legislation, public education, research and data collection, technical assistance, collaboration with other networks, fundraising, and monitoring and evaluation.

Third, it begins to establish the institutional architecture through which that cooperation can be organised, reviewed, and sustained over time. It provides for participation by states and territories of the Wider Caribbean, focal point arrangements, the roles of a Chair and Vice Chair, a Management Unit, Advisors, Observers, and Special Observers, as well as quorum and decision-making procedures. It also encourages the establishment or strengthening of national wildlife enforcement task forces or similar coordinating bodies, so that regional coordination is supported by stronger national coordination.

Notably, the draft MOU goes further than some may expect from a non-binding instrument, yet that level of detail is essential for the meaningful operation of a regional WEN. This includes addressing legal and operational structure, performance metrics, communications, organising documents, fundraising and financial management, intellectual property and data sharing, confidentiality, use of the name and logo, dispute resolution, amendments, and periodic review. These provisions help show that the MOU is intended to be more than a symbolic statement of intent. It is designed as a serious framework for building a functioning regional institution.

Taken together, these provisions show that the draft MOU is intended to do much more than express regional goodwill. It is designed to provide a practical institutional foundation for coordinated action, helping the Working Group move from a growing collaborative process toward a more clearly structured and supportable regional network.

MOU Review and How to Participate

The current first-round review remains open through 31 May 2026. During this period, the Working Group is seeking feedback on the draft from countries and territories within the network’s geographic scope, from other interested governments connected to the Wider Caribbean, and from civil society, scientific, and other non-governmental institutions with relevant interest or expertise in the region and wildlife enforcement within it. The purpose of the review is to identify what is already strong, what still needs clarification, and what should be improved before a revised version is prepared later in the year.

The CAR-WEN Working Group treats this review as a substantive part of the network-building process, not as a procedural afterthought. Multiple rounds of feedback make it more likely that the final document will be practical, credible, and broadly usable. They also create room for the Working Group to test whether the current drafting choices are sufficiently clear, regionally appropriate, and institutionally workable before moving further.

Governments are especially important reviewers because CAR-WEN is being built as an intergovernmental network. At the same time, the invitation to participate should not be read narrowly. Civil society organisations, technical experts, academic contributors, and other informed non-governmental actors can also strengthen the draft, particularly where they can identify ambiguities, test practicality, or suggest refinements that improve the document’s clarity and usefulness.

For those seeking to provide feedback, our review package consists of the draft CAR-WEN MOU (En | Es | Fr) and an associated technical note (En | Es | Fr). Government feedback can be submitted through the government review survey (En | Es | Fr). Non-governmental feedback can be submitted through the non-governmental actor review survey (En). Reviewers who prefer another route of providing feedback may also send us annotated PDFs, written comments, or other notes directly.

Looking Ahead

As explored above, WENs are built not only through shared concern and collaboration, but also through carefully designed instruments that allow cooperation to endure, deepen, and expand over time. Once the current MOU development process concludes, the CAR-WEN community should have a stronger basis for continued institutional development, future formalisation decisions, and the gradual consolidation of a network capable of supporting wildlife enforcement cooperation over the long term. Stakeholders interested in strengthening the draft MOU are encouraged to review the available materials and submit feedback before the close of the first-round review on 31 May 2026.

References

CAR-WEN Working Group. (2025). A memorandum of understanding to establish the Caribbean Wildlife Enforcement Network (CAR-WEN) (Version 2025.06 Rev. 2, draft). In CAR-WEN briefing paper for SPAW including MOU and Technical Note to the MOU (En | Es | Fr).
CAR-WEN Working Group. (2025). Technical note to the memorandum of understanding for the Caribbean Wildlife Enforcement Network (CAR-WEN) (Version 2025.06 Rev. 2, draft). In CAR-WEN briefing paper for SPAW including MOU and Technical Note to the MOU (En | Es | Fr).
International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime. (2020). ICCWC guidelines for Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) [PDF].
Lusaka Agreement on Cooperative Enforcement Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora. (1994). United Nations Treaty Series [PDF].
Lusaka Agreement Task Force. (2005). Strategic plan 2005-2015 [PDF].
South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network. (2014). Statute of the South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN) [PDF].
Red de Observancia y Aplicación de la Normativa de la Vida Silvestre de Centroamérica y República Dominicana. (2010). Memorándum de Entendimiento. [PDF]
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú. (2014). Declaración de Sao Paulo [PDF].
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú. (2025). Términos de Referencias de SudWEN [PDF].

the CAR-WEN Team