Abstract
Wildlife crime is widely regarded as one of the main causes of biodiversity loss. Although the true nature and extent of wildlife crime is unknown, various species fall victim to wildlife crime and some species are even pushed to the brink of extinction as a result of it. Due to the detrimental impact of wildlife crime on the continued survival of biodiversity, international and national policymakers are prioritising the fight against wildlife crime on environmental agendas. In contrast with this prioritisation, however, no clear definition, international convention or combat strategy exists in terms of which countries can determine best practice to fight wildlife crime on national level. In the meantime, it is being left up to each individual country to independently enact national legislation, implement readiness plans and develop innovative additional solutions to conserve and protect the relevant country’s biodiversity against the onslaught of wildlife crime. Amidst various shortcomings and uncertainties, countries are encouraged to find a middle course by using existing related legal instruments and any other additional solutions to combat wildlife crime at national level. It is not entirely clear what such a middle course would or should entail, and regrettably many countries fail to put this mandate into effect. As a result, countries’ legislation differs to such an extent that it results in transnational complexity and ineffectiveness. Furthermore, there are many practical and political obstacles in the pursuit of improved coordination of existing regulatory measures and the formation of cooperative commitments between countries. This article endeavours to propose a middle course in the fight against wildlife crime by examining existing regulatory measures as well as integrating possible complementary solutions that may contribute to the fight against wildlife crime. The following factors are considered in the construction of the argument: (a) possible challenges to enact legislation in the fight against wildlife crime; (b) related existing regulatory measures; (c) conflicting arguments regarding the fight against wildlife crime; and (d) a shift in emphasis in the form of a proposed middle course.
The discussion on the possible challenges to enact legislation in the fight against wildlife crime reveals that one can only speculate about the nature of such challenges, although it might be due to the fact that wildlife crime represents an extremely fragmented environmental issue with characteristics of a present-day “wicked problem” that lacks clear conceptualisation with various drivers and negative consequences. Existing regulatory measures that relate to the fight against wildlife crime are subsequently identified and discussed. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973 (CITES), is currently still the most prominent international treaty that countries can invoke in an attempt to combat wildlife crime. In essence, CITES is not an international environmental treaty, but an international trade treaty that lays down the best practice for member states to regulate international trade in endangered species. However, the activities of organised criminal groups are becoming increasingly intertwined with those of wildlife crime. Next to illegal drug trading, arms trading, counterfeit goods trading and human trafficking, wildlife crime is ranked as one of the most profitable organised crimes in the world. In addition, related serious crimes are associated with the facilitation of wildlife crime. Offenders often commit related serious crimes to facilitate the administrative process associated with the perpetration of wildlife crime; such crimes include corruption, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud and non-payment of government taxes. For these reasons the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2005 and the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2003 can also be of importance in the fight against wildlife crime.
This article points out that in the pursuit of a middle course between existing regulatory measures and additional solutions, the fight against wildlife crime provokes different reactions and diverse arguments on the appropriate way forward. Because of criticism against CITES, international regulatory shortcomings and failed initiatives, two relatively well-known arguments regarding the fight against wildlife crime have arisen. On the one hand, some stakeholders argue that all international trade in wildlife species and their by-products should be legally permitted. On the other, another group of stakeholders argues that stricter trade bans are the best solution. The consequences of these two arguments are thoroughly considered and discussed. It is found that both arguments are seen as risky experiments accompanied by uncertainty and complexity, as biodiversity is currently in such a crisis that there is no room for experimentation and failures. Due to the significant shortcomings in the international legal framework and divergent arguments about the most effective way forward, a middle course must be found in the interim. This article concludes that the middle course requires a shift in emphasis where a holistic approach to combating wildlife crime is followed. The middle course lies in a combination of formal legal instruments and innovative complementary solutions, each deployed to regulate a unique aspect of wildlife crime.
Keywords: additional solutions; CITES; combating wildlife crime; existing regulatory measures; fight against wildlife crime; middle course; wildlife crime
- The photo on this article’s featured image was taken by David Clode and obtained from Unsplash.