Multiple Laws Authorize FWS and NOAA to Pay Rewards for Wildlife Trafficking Information, but the Agencies Reported Paying Few Rewards from Fiscal Years 2007 through 2017

FWS and NOAA officials identified multiple laws, such as the Endangered  Species Act and the Lacey Act, that authorize the payment of financial  rewards to people who provide information on wildlife trafficking. FWS and NOAA Reported Paying Few Rewards for Information on Wildlife Trafficking but Could Not Assure the Completeness of the Information

FWS and NOAA reported paying few financial rewards for information on  wildlife trafficking from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, but agency  officials could not provide sufficient assurance that this information was  complete. FWS and NOAA Have Policies for Administering Reward Payments, but FWS’s Policy Does Not Specify Factors to Consider When Developing Reward Amounts

FWS and NOAA have policies to guide their law enforcement agents on  the process for preparing and submitting a request to pay a financial  reward. Some FWS agents we interviewed said that they developed  proposed reward amounts on a case-by-case basis and did not know  whether their proposed amounts were enough, too little, or too much. Seven of the 20 stakeholders we interviewed suggested that FWS  augment its reward policy to specify factors for agents to consider when  developing proposed reward amounts. However, most of the agencies’ websites did not  indicate that providing information on illegal activities could result in a  reward. For example, using appropriate methods to communicate,  management communicates quality information so that external parties,  such as the public, can help the agency achieve its objectives. NOAA officials also  said they may consider making more reward information publicly available  at the conclusion of our audit but provided no plans for doing so. FWS and NOAA Have Not Reviewed the Effectiveness of Their Use of Financial Rewards

FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of  financial rewards or considered whether any changes might improve the  usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking. FWS and NOAA  officials agreed that reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards  would be worthwhile. By augmenting its  policy to specify factors for its agents to consider when developing  proposed reward amounts, FWS can better ensure that its agents have  the necessary quality information to prepare defensible reward proposals. By determining the types of additional information to  communicate to the public on rewards—such as providing information on  the agency’s website about the potential availability of rewards—and then  developing and implementing plans to do so, FWS and NOAA can  improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking  activities that they otherwise might not receive. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to pay financial rewards for  information on wildlife trafficking and the extent to which these agencies  paid such rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, (2) evaluate  FWS’s and NOAA’s policies on financial rewards, (3) evaluate the  information available to the public on financial rewards, and (4) determine  the extent to which FWS and NOAA reviewed the effectiveness of their  use of financial rewards in combating wildlife trafficking. We compared the  agencies’ public communications on rewards with federal internal control  standards on information and communication. To evaluate the extent to  which FWS and NOAA reviewed the effectiveness of their use of financial  rewards in combating wildlife trafficking, we interviewed FWS and NOAA  officials and requested any reviews the agencies had conducted  regarding their use of financial rewards to compare with federal internal  control standards on control activities. Appendix II: Laws Implemented or Enforced by FWS and NOAA That Prohibit Wildlife Trafficking and Authorize Financial Rewards

The Department of the Interior’s U.S.
Why GAO Did This Study

Wildlife trafficking—the poaching and illegal trade of plants, fish, and wildlife—is a multibillion-dollar, global criminal activity that imperils thousands of species. FWS and NOAA enforce laws prohibiting wildlife trafficking that authorize the agencies to pay financial rewards for information about such illegal activities.
GAO was asked to review FWS's and NOAA's use of financial rewards to combat wildlife trafficking. This report examines (1) laws that authorize FWS and NOAA to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking and the extent to which the agencies paid such rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017, (2) the agencies' reward policies, (3) information available to the public on rewards, and (4) the extent to which the agencies reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards.
GAO reviewed laws, examined FWS and NOAA policies and public communications on rewards, analyzed agency reward data for fiscal years 2007 through 2017 and assessed their reliability, interviewed FWS and NOAA officials, and compared agency policies and public communications on rewards to federal internal control standards.

What GAO Found

Multiple laws—such as the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act—authorize the Departments of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to pay rewards for information on wildlife trafficking. FWS and NOAA reported paying few rewards from fiscal years 2007 through 2017. Specifically, the agencies collectively reported paying 27 rewards, totaling $205,500. Agency officials said that the information was complete to the best of their knowledge but could not sufficiently assure that this information represented all of their reward payments.
FWS and NOAA have reward policies that outline the general process for preparing reward proposals, but FWS's policy does not specify factors for its agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts. Some FWS agents GAO interviewed said that in developing proposals, they did not know whether their proposed reward amounts were enough, too little, or too much. By augmenting its policy to specify factors for agents to consider, FWS can better ensure that its agents have the necessary quality information to prepare proposed reward amounts, consistent with federal internal control standards.
FWS and NOAA communicate little information to the public on rewards. For example, most agency websites did not indicate that providing information on wildlife trafficking could qualify for a reward. This is inconsistent with federal standards that call for management to communicate quality information so that external parties can help achieve agency objectives. FWS and NOAA officials said they have not communicated general reward information because of workload concerns, but they said it may be reasonable to provide more information in some instances. By developing plans to communicate more reward information to the public, the agencies can improve their chances of obtaining information on wildlife trafficking that they otherwise might not receive.
FWS and NOAA have not reviewed the effectiveness of their use of rewards. The agencies have not done so because using rewards has generally not been a priority. FWS and NOAA officials agreed that such a review would be worthwhile but provided no plans for doing so. By reviewing the effectiveness of their use of rewards, FWS and NOAA can identify opportunities to improve the usefulness of rewards as a tool for combating wildlife trafficking.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven recommendations, including that FWS and NOAA track reward information, FWS augment its reward policy to specify factors for agents to consider when developing proposed reward amounts, FWS and NOAA develop plans to communicate more reward information to the public, and FWS and NOAA review the effectiveness of their reward use. Both agencies concurred with these recommendations.