It is far easier to make money exploiting the environment than it is protecting it. It is that basic insight that is at the heart of the strategy set out in this book to help bring the global illegal wildlife trade to an end.

I’ve worked with John Kahekwa and his team in the Pole Pole Foundation (or POPOF for short) for over a decade. As a multi-award-winning conservation charity and Earthshot Prize finalist working in one of the toughest countries on earth, they are at the sharp end of conservation and have seen it all. John started his career as a ranger protecting and habituating gorillas in Kahuzi-Biega National Park where in the 1980s he took tourists to visit them, including Al Gore and Bill Gates, while also helping with the filming of Gorillas in the Mist. After using a ten dollar tip to launch a successful souvenir business, he launched the Pole Pole Foundation in 1992 to give back to the community and to further protect the critically endangered gorillas. Since then he and his family have experienced the horrors of what has been termed “Africa's World War”, which is estimated to have caused around 5 million deaths, and killed 80–90 per cent of the Grauer's gorillas that he works to protect. In the chapters that follow I have sought to combine the insights gained from working with John and his team with the work of other researchers and practitioners, including those focused on global demand reduction and countering international organized crime, to develop an effective strategy to counter the illegal wildlife trade (IWT).

A lot of people I come across in my work, including some on the frontline of conservation, do not think that IWT can be stopped and that the current “fire-fighting” approach is all that can be realistically achieved in the face of what seem overwhelming odds. Anyone who watches the news can understand their point of view, but the outlook is not all negative. Progress has been made.

I have worked in the conservation field for almost 15 years and have found broadly the same problems faced across the sector. Most of my experience is in Africa, especially east and southern Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), including my work with the multi-award winning conservation NGO and Earthshot Prize finalist the Pole Pole Foundation to develop a blueprint for national park conservation. However during my doctoral research I have worked with many organizations from other parts of the world and have seen and heard the same problems arising. This book is the result: a strategy developed from the practices that I have found to deliver effective results, combined with learning from projects that have been unsuccessful. Although some readers may feel that there is not much new in this book, I hope the synthesis of a large body of knowledge from the sector into a simplified set of insights and, most importantly, a workable strategy to help bring an end to the illegal wildlife trade, will be welcomed.

I have primarily worked with military and commercial organizations, where the approach is to understand a problem, develop an effective and cost-efficient strategy to solve it, and then task and support well-trained people to deliver that strategy on the ground and in so doing, adapt and overcome the specific challenges faced in that process. This book is designed to be just such a strategic handrail, but it necessarily relies on people being able to execute the strategy effectively. For example, law enforcement requires trained and experienced professionals to be successful, and monetizing nature requires commercially minded people to execute business models, raise revenue, and deliver high-quality products that appeal to the market.

It is this alignment of people and strategy that is key to success in the real world and it is where the environmental sector has often struggled. There are some phenomenal people working in conservation, often at great personal risk, who are poorly paid and under-resourced. Without them the situation would be a great deal worse, but too much of their work is fire-fighting.

This chapter sets out an imagined example of what the SWIPRO strategy could look like when executed in the real world. As I have outlined, the SWIPRO approach addresses the underlying causes of IWT, chiefly by developing business solutions to solve the economic equation. Those businesses then provide the funds to pay for enhanced law enforcement and community support in and around protected areas to solve the poacher's equation and, at the national and global level, to support efforts to break criminal networks through financial investigations and to help deliver a commercial approach to reduce IWT demand through substitution. I believe the SWIPRO strategy offers the most effective and workable solution to bring IWT to an end.

In the sections below I set out a fictional protected area to show how the SWIPRO strategy can best be applied in different contexts. I also provide some imagined solutions to break networks and for products and campaigns to reduce IWT demand through substitution. Not all of these ideas will necessarily work in the real world exactly as set out in this chapter, but the intent is to show what could be delivered to provide inspiration to those with the motivation and capability to make such ideas happen.

THE NATIONAL PARK (TNP)

TNP is an imagined protected area with good road transport links to the country's main city which contains both a maritime port and an international airport. Surrounding TNP live local communities facing high levels of poverty, a lack of education and health facilities and a 20 per cent child malnutrition rate. TNP contains the “Big 5” game – lions, leopards, buffalo, elephants and rhinos – as well as a host of other mammals, birds and reptiles, including pangolins. Organized criminal networks operate in TNP, recruiting members of the local community to support experienced poachers to kill rhinos and elephants, and paying poachers in the local community for big cat skins and bones, and captured pangolins. High levels of poaching have led to population declines in all the key species in TNP, so the wildlife authority and conservation NGOs operating in and around the park have asked for outside support to help them implement the SWIPRO strategy. That support began five years ago, and the results are set out below.

I was speaking to a well-respected Zambian wildlife police officer (ranger) working in Kafue National Park in Zambia to find out more about the poaching situation in the park. After he had outlined the problems they were having, I asked if poaching continued throughout the year and in all areas of the park. He said there was no poaching on the western edge of the park in July and August. This was the time of the tobacco harvest, which created a lot of local employment, removing the need and the time to poach. Although not a perfect example of a business solution to CIWT – some of the tobacco farms were encroaching on the game management areas and there was no link between the tobacco companies and conservation – that example, especially the ranger's remark that they had neither the need nor the time to poach has remained with me.

The central argument of this chapter is that generating revenue from diversified business models associated with conservation at the tactical level is the lynchpin for success in CIWT (we shall examine the strategic level in Chapter 6 on demand reduction). The more revenue that protected areas can generate, the stronger the justification for conservation and the more success is likely to be achieved: “if it pays it stays”. That increased revenue creates powerful economic interests for protection over exploitation, flipping the economic equation on its head as conservation becomes a profitable activity instead of a cost, and more money can be generated from conservation than illegal exploitation.

I believe that the most effective business models are those that offer protection, income and employment for protected areas and the communities living around them. Protection comes in the form of physical barriers to entry for potential poachers, the security provided by the businesses themselves, and the deterrent effect of strong economic interests tied to conservation. Income relates to how much revenue can be generated by businesses associated with conservation, both to make the economic case that protection can compete and win on commercial terms over exploitation, and to provide finance for the other elements of SWIPRO through revenue shares to organizations delivering CIWT activity. Employment directly addresses the poacher's equation by removing the need to poach and winning the support of local communities.

Frederick the Great of Prussia was concerned about the risk of famine due to the dependence of the population on wheat as their main source of carbohydrates. He wanted to diversify away from this monocrop by getting peasant farmers to grow potatoes. However, despite his best efforts to force the new crop on his subjects, he failed; Prussian peasants said that potatoes tasted so horrible that not even dogs would eat them. So he tried a different tack, declaring the potato to be a royal vegetable, only to be grown within the palace grounds and guarded night and day by armed soldiers. Secretly, however, the soldiers were told not to do a very good job. Sure enough, as word spread about the exclusive new royal vegetable, thieves entered the grounds to steal the potatoes, a black market soon emerged, and farmers all over Prussia started to grow the new crop.

I enjoy this story because it shows what can be achieved by the clever use of psychology in marketing, and that the obvious way to achieve a goal is not always the most effective. It is this type of behavioural approach that could be utilized to weaken demand for IWT products. The approach also helps us to better understand what underpins demand for IWT products. For example, as discussed in previous chapters, rhino horn is now more valuable than gold. This is not just as a result of scarcity and market forces, or demand for its medicinal properties (it has none), but because it has become a symbol of conspicuous consumption; a recent trend among Vietnamese millionaires is to have rhino horn ground into expensive cocktails.

Such cultural trends can emerge quite suddenly and unpredictably, leading to increases in poaching and the trade in a particular species, and they can be difficult to identify; it can take time to notice sustained increases in exploitation and trading of individual species, and often by the time the increase is identified, the damage to the species is already severe, as we saw in Chapter 1. The current approach to demand reduction then requires grant applications to be completed and campaigns to be developed to raise the profile of the species involved, which takes time, all the while the species is being lost.

As part of my Masters degree I had to undertake an internship in a region of armed conflict or post-conflict, working with a relevant NGO on the topic of my dissertation. I wanted to examine the linkages between conservation and postwar recovery, and was fortunate to get the chance to work in eastern DRC and Rwanda. One of the projects being run by the NGO that I interned with was a honey cooperative. They were working with local communities to develop a social enterprise to produce and sell honey in nearby markets, to create employment and income to stop poaching.

The idea was sound, but the execution epitomized why CIWT approaches have yet to scale and bring an end to the trade. A Ugandan member of the team, with no commercial background, was trying to teach members of the Rwandan local community, via a translator, how to develop a business model to produce, process, transport and sell their honey. I bought a pot of honey back home with me and ran some taste tests with friends and family, all of whom were impressed by the quality. Here was a product – “gorilla-friendly” honey – that tasted great and could potentially have built a strong brand, but it was going nowhere. That was my first experience of how important it is to get the right people involved, and it was the first time I saw the potential to scale existing conservation projects to deliver a commercial solution. There is some great work in the CIWT space, but without a shift in strategy that will enable that work to significantly expand its impact, the trade is unlikely to end. It echoes a point made by John and his POPOF team in the DRC; they know what is needed to stop poaching, but they don't know how to execute those ideas at the scale required to end poaching. You can have the greatest strategy in the world, but if you don't have the people or finance in place to execute it effectively, the chances of failure remain high.

I often wish that authors would provide a concise distillation of their book to refer back to after reading the whole tome. A short version, highlighting the key takeaways, can be a helpful rapid remind and revise and point the reader back to specific chapters to reread in more detail. I’ve tried to do that here.

The illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is estimated to be worth up to $20 billion per year and threatens the survival of thousands of species of flora and fauna. The trade is facilitated by organized criminal groups, many of which are involved in other illicit activities, utilizing the same networks and routes to move IWT products. IWT increases the risk of future pandemics due to the risk of zoonotic disease transfer from wildlife to humans, and also entrenches corruption throughout the supply chain.

The trade can be broken down into two component parts: the act of poaching, including the capture of live animals; and the subsequent trade in the wildlife products, such as ivory, from point of capture to point of sale. Most of the funds from IWT come at the point of sale, with poachers often receiving only a few cents on the dollar of the overall trade. This leads source countries and communities to lose the economic benefits from conservation and taxation of legal businesses, but it also offers an opportunity to intervene at the lowest level to stop poaching at source. I argue that these low-level interventions are the most effective interventions; “save the animal to kill the trade”.

To help understand what is driving the trade, I set out two frameworks: the economic equation and the poacher's equation. The economic equation identifies the asymmetry in the trade, with exploitation cheap and lucrative, while conservation is expensive and poorly-funded, leading organized criminal groups to view the trade as low-risk and high-reward. The poacher's equation focuses on why an individual or community would poach or not, setting the potential gain against the potential loss, divided by the perceived risk of getting caught. By solving both of these equations we can help bring an end to IWT.

The mismeasurement of investment and the resulting reinforcing of the idea that taxes should be low and that government budgets need to be balanced has played a critical role in undermining the quality of habitation. Ever since the 1970s, subnational levels of government have faced an ongoing fiscal crisis as the demand for services increased faster than the available revenues from taxes. In the U.S., the problem was briefly mitigated by federal revenue sharing, but that policy ended under the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The result has been decaying infrastructure, underfunded services, and an inability to address a growing crisis of housing affordability at the state or local level.

Most significantly, these fiscal pressures have resulted in diminished public spending on education. This is most dramatic in terms of support for public higher education. In many states in the U.S. fees at public colleges and universities were historically quite modest, making it possible for these institutions to be avenues of upward mobility for people from low- and middle-income families. However, for more than 40 years, the trend has been to reduce the amount of public support and rely to an ever-greater extent on tuition payments or student fees. The consequence is that fewer people from low- and middle-income households have been willing to take on the student debt loads required to cover tuition. This, in turn, means that the long historical trend towards higher levels of educational attainment has slowed considerably with other nations catching up and exceeding the U.S.

Moreover, spending on primary and secondary education has also been stagnant with the consequence that compensation for teachers has failed to increase. One study showed that between 1996 and 2021, weekly wages for U.S. school teachers were stable after adjusting for inflation while comparable compensation for other college graduates had increased by 33 per cent. In other words, the ongoing fiscal crisis works precisely to limit the kinds of investment spending that is most critical in a habitation economy.

In the U.S., governments at the state and local level do have the option of borrowing by issuing bonds that are used primarily to finance construction projects: infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and public buildings. The federal government has supported this market by exempting most municipal bonds from federal taxation.

The quote from Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks from 1930 is eerily relevant to our current historical moment. The morbid symptoms that he had in mind included Mussolini's fascist regime that had imprisoned him and the growing strength of Hitler's National Socialist Party in Germany. Today's morbid symptoms are the rising threats to democratic governance posed by ultranationalist right-wing movements and leaders. Using the fascist label for Vladimir Putin, Victor Orbán, Jair Bolsonaro, and Donald Trump remains controversial partly because these leaders have not yet assembled paramilitary gangs dressed in uniforms of the same color. Nevertheless, their unrelenting hostility to liberal democratic norms and institutions is beyond debate.

But why is democratic governance now experiencing the most intense challenges since the 1930s? One powerful explanation emphasizes the global reign of neoliberal or market fundamentalist economic ideas from the late 1970s down to the current moment. Those ideas have led to reduced taxation of corporations and the very wealthy, and constraints on the ability of governments to protect citizens from market fluctuations. Moreover, those ideas have changed the ground rules of the global economy in ways that further constrain what governments can provide to their own citizens. The result has been dramatic increases in income and wealth inequality and relatively slow growth of average household incomes. Frustrated voters have responded by turning to outsider candidates, sometimes of the far right, who promise to restore the good times of the past.

A compatible line of argument emphasizes political realignments that have come with rising educational levels in developed economies. Thomas Piketty has called this the “Brahminization of left parties.” Historically, the majority of voters with a college education had voted with right-wing parties, but in recent decades, much of this group has shifted their allegiance to parties of the left. This has diminished the focus of these parties on improving the economic situation of voters with lower levels of education.

Unfamiliar terms can be useful to highlight patterns that are hard to recognize with our existing vocabulary and concepts. This is the reason for using the somewhat archaic word “habitation”. The dictionary definition is “the state or process of living in a particular place.” The most familiar usage is to say that there are no signs of human habitation in a particular place.

I use the term to encompass all of the activities that are involved in creating, maintaining, and improving the human settlements in which we live. During the Covid-19 lockdowns, we became acutely aware of the “essential workers” who made it possible for the rest of us to survive when we were confined to our own homes. Those essential workers included hospital employees, grocery and supermarket staffs, delivery people, and those keeping the phones, the internet, the electricity, and other utilities from crashing. We can think of these essential workers as the core of the habitation workforce.

But many of the others who were laid off or working from home during the lockdowns were also part of the habitation labor force. This includes construction workers building homes, offices, commercial spaces, or infrastructure projects. It also encompasses the people employed in education, childcare, and healthcare including also yoga studios, gyms, and mental health services. Moreover, those working in city government, policing, transportation, arts and entertainment, retail trade and restaurants are sustaining habitation. Finally, the growing number of people in the innovation economy who are developing new products and new processes are working to improve habitation in the future.

Most of us also do habitation work when we are not engaged in paid employment. Childrearing, cleaning house, home repairs, yard work, helping neighbors, and participation in civic groups are also part of creating, maintaining, and improving our communities. Similarly, various forms of activism to reduce environmental harms or increase the accountability of police can also be counted as doing habitation work.

This book has a very long history. My politics and my worldview were a product of a time very long ago—the 1960s. I was part of the New Left in the U.S. as an undergraduate (1964–68) and as a graduate student (1968–74). My values and my understanding of politics were shaped by a movement that struggled for racial justice, to stop the Vietnam War, and to challenge corporate power. But while my core convictions have not changed, reality today is in many ways different from what it was in the 1960s. I have attempted to develop new language and new concepts to make my old values relevant to the lived experience of the third decade of the twenty-first century.

In the student movement of the 1960s, we believed in something called “participatory democracy”—the idea that people should have much greater influence over decisions shaping their lives than was possible through voting in periodic elections. While our youthful dreams of radical change were not realized as the United States moved steadily rightward in subsequent decades, I have held on to that vision of a society in which ordinary people were empowered. This book is an effort to give that idea of participatory democracy new relevance and new urgency.

With ideas that have gestated over 60 years, I have accumulated more intellectual debts that I can possibly acknowledge here. First and foremost, there is a group of friends and close colleagues who have sustained me over many decades of continuous conversations and debates. This group includes Peter Evans, Larry Hirschhorn, Carole Joffe, Karl Klare, Magali Sarfatti Larson, Marguerite Mendell, Frances Fox Piven, Michael Reich, Margaret Somers, Howard Winant, and the late Erik Olin Wright. Matthew R. Keller and Marian Negoita have worked with me for almost 20 years exploring the complexities of government-sponsored innovation in the U.S. and other nations. My co-editor for Democratizing Finance, Robert Hockett helped to deepen my understanding of finance and credit.

Our habitation economy remains largely invisible because of the consensus that our society is organized around a market economy. The problem is that a market economy is defined as one in which people buy and sell commodities. However, most of the things that we consume today are not similar to the items that economists have labeled as commodities. The factory that Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations made pins and David Ricardo's analysis of international trade focused on cloth and wine. Their analyses depended on a definition of commodities as standardized goods that are available from many different producers. Moreover, they also assume a transaction between buyer and seller that was a one-shot transaction rather than a longterm relationship.

Karl Polanyi noted 80 years ago that three of the core elements of an economy—land, labor, and money—are fictitious commodities because they were not produced to be sold on a market. Land is nature subdivided into parcels of different sizes, labor is the activity of human beings, and the supply of money is generally carefully regulated by central banks. It follows that the supply and demand for these key economic inputs cannot possibly be equilibrated by ongoing changes in prices. In a word, Polanyi shows that the existence of these fictitious commodities undermines the claim that a market economy could be a self-regulating structure.

The argument here builds on Polanyi, but it is somewhat different. Polanyi was effectively distinguishing between the process of commodification and the production of actual commodities. Society creates a market for labor where the work of human beings is effectively commodified, but this project of commodification does not actually transform labor into a commodity that is equivalent to a bushel of wheat or a ton of steel. Labor remains a fictitious commodity even as we pretend that the labor market is just like any other commodity market.

The point is that almost anything can be commodified. We have seen that happen with trips into outer space, nonfungible tokens, and the service of surrogates to carry a fertilized egg to childbirth. In fact, most forms of care—childcare, healthcare, eldercare—can be purchased on the market. However, the fact that something is commodified does not magically transform it into a standardized good transferred between buyer and seller in a single moment.

This book has sought to illuminate the centuries-old conflict between habitation and improvement. Improvements in the form of technological advances have frequently undermined the habitation of many people. I have tried to show, however, that we have the possibility of channeling improvements in directions that would actually improve the habitation for all people. But this potential is not being realized within the existing political-economic constraints that drastically limit the ability of people to shape their own communities. The urgent task is to democratize the creation of habitation and this requires reforms that allow people to exercise greater control over the soft and hard infrastructures of the communities in which they live.

The intensification of the climate crisis has made the task of democratizing habitation ever more urgent. Climate scientists have been warning for decades of the dangers of continuing to pump more and more greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere, but it has only been in the decade of the 2020s that the negative consequences have become undeniably obvious. Extreme heat, uncontrollable wild fires that darken the sky for thousands of miles, devastating droughts, ever more powerful hurricanes, typhoons and tornadoes, floods, and other extreme weather events have become increasingly common. Everyone's habitation and even their survival are now threatened by the reality of climate change.

Responding to this threat requires two connected initiatives that would be accelerated by democratizing habitation. The first is to speed up the shift to energy conservation and the use of renewables so that societies could more quickly lower the production of greenhouse gases. Whatever initiatives have been put into place by central governments are bound to move more quickly if and when people at the local level are actively engaged in reducing their community's dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, those local initiatives would place more pressure on central governments to move more boldly and spend more money on the effort.

The second initiative is increasing the resilience of local communities, so that people are better protected against extreme heat, flooding or other climate-related disasters. This can involve everything from major infrastructure projects to redirect water flows to the creation of cooling centers to organizing self-help initiatives at the neighborhood level.

In the era of standardized commodities, a particular type of organization became the dominant type of business firm in the economy. This was the large multi-divisional, hierarchical corporation that excelled at producing large quantities of standardized items with great efficiency. However, we continue to rely on this same type of organization to produce destandardized goods and services in a habitation economy even though other organizational models are actually better at producing destandardized goods and services. Since these organizations have very deep pockets and considerable influence in the political system, they have been able to continue their dominance despite the fact that other types of organization might be more effective and more efficient. Their continuing dominance is one of the key reasons why we are not able to have the kind of habitation that most of us would like to have.

The concept of monoculture that comes from farming provides a useful analogy. Critics of industrial-style agriculture employ the term to describe what happens when large areas of land are shifted from cultivating multiple types of vegetation to focusing on a single crop or one particular type of livestock. For farming organizations, monoculture often seems like an obvious and efficient choice since it allows for the optimal use of both farm machinery and land. Monoculture is basically the application of the assembly line to agricultural production to reduce the cost of production of each unit of output.

Critics point out, however, that the cost–benefit supporting monoculture is often misleading. Vast expanses of the same crop are an invitation to the rapid proliferation of pests and disease that specialize in that particular crop or species of animal. Furthermore, monoculture tends to deplete the soil of key nutrients requiring ever larger outlays for fertilizer which, in turn, has negative environmental consequences. Concentrated animal feeding operations such as giant pig farms produce huge lagoons of animal waste that can seep into the ground water and produce noxious odors for miles around. In sum, monoculture might be profitable in the short term, but it can be unsustainable and inefficient over the longer term.