The core theoretical developments are grounded in thorough and sustained empirical research by the whole team. We undertook 493 interviews with representatives from conservation NGOs, governments, international organisations, media organisations, protected area managers and the private sector. We explored the role of global actors in shaping approaches to tackling illegal wildlife trade, notably donors, international organisations, conservation NGOs, philanthropists and governments. The research analysed patterns of donor funding for illegal wildlife trade programmes, showing that there has been a shift towards law enforcement approaches. Our research examined the ways governments and NGOs articulated and presented wildlife crime as a key threat to species and to global stability. This work focused on understanding the wider implications of the shift towards militarisation and policies based on heavier law enforcement, including the pressures on rangers, human rights abuses and partnering between conservationists and private security professionals. We also examined the wider social implications of reliance on new technologies in creating cultures of security and surveillance in conservation. Much of the debate about illegal wildlife trade revolves around charismatic species, such as elephants, rhinos and tigers, but our research highlighted the importance of studying overlooked or non charismatic species including cacti, songbirds, timber and caviar. We developed specific in depth case studies from Indonesia, Romania, Mozambique, South Africa, USA, the EU, Mexico, Serbia, Western Balkans and Vietnam, which revealed important commonalities and differences in the dynamics of trade and responses to poaching and trafficking.
Our research developed six cross cutting themes: militarisation of conservation, defining wildlife crime, technologies, European wildlife trades, commodification and consumption, and laws and loopholes. Engaging with these themes also allowed us to provide policy relevant information to support user groups in designing more socially just and effective responses.
We engaged in knowledge exchange and dissemination activities throughout the life of the BIOSEC Project. These included academic articles in leading journals (with books and special issues to come); and we also organised 19 knowledge exchange workshops, participated in 18 further workshops, wrote 8 policy briefs, produced 6 themed videos and recorded 5 dedicated podcasts. We maintained an active online presence via a bespoke website and Twitter feed to communicate our findings and gain feedback from key stakeholders.
