The CAR-WEN Memorandum of Understanding: A Framework for Regional Cooperation
Developing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a central activity of the CAR-WEN Working Group and an essential part of our work to fully establish the Caribbean Wildlife Enforcement Network. As a non-binding agreement among governments, the MOU would set out how participating governments would cooperate, make decisions and organise the network’s work.
In our earlier post, we introduced the MOU during its first regional review. Following that consultation and subsequent revisions, the updated draft is now available in English, Spanish and French for a second regional review, with comments invited by 30 October 2026. This provides governments and other interested contributors with a further opportunity to shape the proposed agreement before a final text is prepared for signature.
In this post, we explain how the MOU has developed, explore its core content and outline how you can contribute to the current review. We conclude by considering how the agreement would lay the foundation for the network’s future.
Developing the MOU
Development of the MOU builds on more than a decade of regional discussions about cooperation on wildlife enforcement. Beginning in 2014, discussions among Parties to the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol helped establish the basis for a Caribbean network. Subsequent workshops in The Bahamas in 2016 and Barbados in 2017 produced an initial draft MOU and a statement of intent to establish a Working Group. When the current CAR-WEN Working Group was established in 2022, we took up this earlier work as the starting point for developing the proposed agreement.
Through presentations, consultations and successive revisions, government focal points and technical contributors helped us consider how these initial proposals could work across the Wider Caribbean. Alongside this regional input, we drew on the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime’s guidelines for Wildlife Enforcement Networks, which provide practical guidance for establishing and strengthening such networks. This approach allowed us to draw on experience from elsewhere while considering the region’s particular circumstances. The intention has been to support existing institutions and commitments, including those under the SPAW Protocol and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The proposed MOU would provide a clearer basis for governments to cooperate in that work.
To bring the resulting proposal into wider regional discussion, we circulated the draft MOU and an accompanying Technical Note in English, Spanish and French for review between July 2025 and May 2026. Feedback from government agencies, civil society organisations and multilateral partners helped us identify where the proposed arrangements needed further clarification or revision.
The current draft MOU, Version 2.2, therefore brings together the earlier regional proposal, guidance for wildlife enforcement networks and the results of consultation. Our Technical Note explains the revisions in greater detail. With this development process in mind, we turn to what the MOU currently proposes for the network.
The CAR-WEN MOU Credit: CAR-WEN Team
What the MOU Proposes
The current MOU brings together 20 sections describing what participating governments would seek to achieve through the CAR-WEN and how they would organise that work. Its provisions move from the shared basis for cooperation to the governance and practical arrangements needed to support it, before addressing how the network would be established and could adapt over time.
A common basis for cooperation is established in Sections 1–5 through provisions on purpose, participation and potential activities. These connect the shared objective of preventing and reducing wildlife crime with opportunities for training, legislative development, research and public education. They also recognise that governments would participate under different constitutional arrangements and with different priorities and resources. For example, governments could collaborate on improving wildlife legislation while retaining responsibility for decisions about their respective laws. The voluntary, non-binding character of the agreement would allow them to pursue shared interests without assuming identical responsibilities or automatic financial commitments.
To guide this cooperation, the governance provisions in Sections 6–10 give participating governments responsibility for directing the network, with administrative support and technical input from other contributors. Government focal points would connect regional discussions with the relevant authorities in their jurisdictions, while an elected Chair and Vice Chair would provide leadership. A Management Unit would support the implementation of participants’ decisions through administration and coordination. Through working groups, advisory roles and observer participation, the network could also draw on expertise from civil society, academia and other partners. These arrangements distinguish responsibility for directing the network from the supporting roles through which its work could be advanced.
To support implementation, the provisions in Sections 11–16 address how cooperation would be organised within participating jurisdictions and sustained through the network’s planning and management processes. Specifically, coordination among relevant agencies would connect regional priorities with the institutions responsible for carrying them forward, while regular meetings and communications would support the development of agreed activities. Work plans and budgets would specify those activities, responsibilities and resource needs, while performance reporting would help participants assess progress and adjust their approach. Information sharing would support this work, subject to clear limits on what the network itself could receive and manage. Section 16 therefore allows the network to maintain shared reference materials and administrative records. Operational information and intelligence, however, would be exchanged directly among the responsible government authorities and would not be received, held, processed or transmitted by the network itself.
Finally, the provisions in Sections 17–20 address the network’s establishment and the means of adapting its arrangements over time. They explain how the agreement would become operative and how signatures and participation would be recorded, alongside procedures for review, modification, withdrawal and closure. A periodic review could, for example, identify administrative difficulties that participants wish to address through changes to the agreement. In this way, governments could reconsider the arrangements in light of experience rather than assuming that the initial text would remain suitable indefinitely.
Taken together, these provisions establish how participants could organise and sustain cooperation, while leaving specific programmes and activities to subsequent decisions. The MOU would therefore provide the organisational foundation for the CAR-WEN, with further work needed to agree its priorities, establish its administrative arrangements and secure the resources for implementation.
Contributing to the MOU’s Development
The current review provides an opportunity to consider how the proposed arrangements would work for the governments and institutions involved in wildlife enforcement across the Wider Caribbean. Although the MOU would be an agreement among governments, its development also benefits from the experience of those who would work alongside the network. We therefore welcome contributions from practitioners, civil society organisations, researchers and regional partners, as well as the government authorities reviewing the text.
For example, an agency may identify a proposed responsibility that is unclear or difficult to fulfil within its existing arrangements. A civil society organisation may see an opportunity to clarify how it could contribute expertise or support an agreed activity. Such observations can help us assess whether the framework is clear and practical, and where further revision is needed. For governments, this review also provides an opportunity to identify any remaining issues that could affect their support for the agreement.
We invite readers to explore the revised MOU and accompanying Technical Note and share their perspectives by 30 October 2026. The MOU is available in English, Spanish and French, and the Technical Note in English, Spanish and French. Contributions may address a specific provision or a broader question about how the proposed arrangements would work in practice. Comments can be sent to Mark Gibson and Brittanny Perch, or submitted through the review questionnaire, available in English, Spanish and French. We will consider these contributions before preparing the final text for signature.
Laying the Foundation for the CAR-WEN
In summary, the proposed MOU draws on years of regional discussion to provide a framework for establishing and operating the CAR-WEN. It sets out how governments could organise their cooperation, collectively guide the network’s work and draw on the expertise of supporting partners. The current review provides an opportunity to refine these arrangements in light of the experience and needs of those who would put them into practice.
Looking ahead, finalising the agreement and securing governmental participation would support the transition from our current Working Group to an established network. Participating governments would then determine how to build on the work already undertaken, with priorities and activities shaped by their needs and available resources. We invite you to contribute to the agreement’s development now, helping establish a practical basis for that future cooperation.
Sources and Further Reading
CAR-WEN Draft Memorandum of Understanding, Version 2.2. The proposed agreement currently open for regional review. Available in English, Spanish and French.
CAR-WEN Technical Note to the Memorandum of Understanding, Version 2.2. Further detail on the MOU’s development, the reasoning behind its provisions and revisions following consultation. Available in English, Spanish and French.
ICCWC Guidelines for Wildlife Enforcement Networks. Guidance on establishing and strengthening wildlife enforcement networks, which informed the CAR-WEN’s proposed arrangements. Available in English, Spanish and French.
