Policing Wildlife

Perspectives on the Enforcement of Wildlife Legislation

A. Nurse

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137400017
• Topic: Philosophie
• Subtopic: Philosophie & Ethik in der Wissenschaft

Policing Wildlife examines both the extent and enforcement of wildlife law, one of the fastest growing areas of crime globally. The book considers how enforcement regimes need to adapt to contemporary wildlife crime threats, particularly those posed by terrorism and organised crime.

1

Introduction

While this is not a law book, in the context of being black letter law discourse, it is undoubtedly a book about the law and, in particular, the practical enforcement and implementation of contemporary wildlife law. Applying a green criminological perspective (Lynch and Stretesky, 2003, 2014), this book explores current practice on wildlife law enforcement and examines how justice systems’ handling of wildlife crimes might be improved.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book’s focus and of the importance of wildlife crime to criminological study both green and traditional. Wildlife crime is often transnational crime and White identifies that ‘a concern with environmental crime inevitably leads the analytical gaze to acknowledge the fusion of the local and the global’ (2012: 15). Green (eco-global) criminology is concerned with crimes of global significance, those that transcend the traditional boundaries of criminal justice and its concerns with interpersonal and property crimes. Instead green criminology primarily considers transnational crimes; those which potentially have impact on a global scale affecting both human and non-human victims (Ellefsen et al., 2012).

Green criminology and environmental harm discourse

White and Heckenberg identify that ‘in response to growing discontent about the state of the environment a distinctive, critical “green criminology” has emerged in recent years’ (2014: 1). Beginning in the 1990s when the term first emerged as a means of encapsulating ‘a critical and sustained approach to the study of environmental crime’ (White and Heckenberg, 2014) green scholars had focussed on issues relating to the environment and social harm. In doing so, they have exposed environmental and ecological injustice in addition to identifying areas where mainstream criminal justice will benefit from a green perspective while ‘general’ criminal justice techniques can be applied to green crimes. Within this unique area of scholarly activity, researchers also examine the links between green crimes and other forms of crime, including organised crime’s movement into the illegal trade in wildlife or the links between domestic animal abuse, domestic violence and more ‘serious’ forms of offending such as serial killing. In essence, green criminology allows for the study of environmental and criminal laws, environmental criminality and the abuse and exploitation of non-human animals. Green criminology also provides a mechanism for rethinking the study of criminal laws, ethics, crime and criminal behaviour (Situ and Emmons, 2000; Lynch and Stretesky, 2003).

Potter (2010: 10) argues that the link between environmental issues and criminology takes place on three levels.

• First, we can identify a range of crime and criminal justice activity relating directly to environmental issues.

• Second, we can see the study of environmental harm in general as an extension of the well-established (and indeed fundamental) tradition within both sociology and criminology of critically questioning the very definition of crime and the core subject matter of criminology.

• Finally, it is possible to identify a number of areas where environmentalists can benefit from the experience of sociologists and criminologists working within more traditional notions of crime.

Lynch and Stretesky identify that green criminology moves away from traditional criminology’s focus on ‘crimes as harms caused by humans primarily against humans that are defined in law as criminal harms’ (2014: 6) to incorporate an environmental frame of reference. As White and Heckenberg state that ‘the key focus of green criminology is environmental harm but green criminologists also study environmentally harmful activities not currently defined as crimes’ (2014: 8). At its best, green criminology attempts to both challenge and indeed overturn many common-sense notions of crime to reveal and challenge the reality of harms with wider social impact and negative consequences for the environment and human relations (Nurse, 2013a). As Potter’s (2010) conception suggests, green criminology is concerned not just with distinctly environmental crimes but also with how studying green crimes can help to improve criminology.

Within green criminology, considerable attention has been paid to the topics of animal abuse and cruelty and the study of animal abusers (Beirne, 2007; Sollund, 2012; Nurse, 2013a). A number of scholars have also explored wildlife trafficking as a growing area of transnational crime; prominent within the hierarchy of global crimes (Zimmerman, 2003; Schneider, 2008; Wyatt, 2009, 2013; South and Wyatt, 2011). Green criminology applies a broad ‘green’ perspective to environmental harms, ecological justice and the study of environmental laws and criminality which includes crimes affecting wildlife (however defined). The ecological justice and species justice perspectives of green criminology (Benton, 1998; Beirne, 2007; White, 2008) contend that justice systems need to do more than just consider anthropocentric notions of criminal justice; they should also consider how justice systems can provide protection and redress for other species (Benton, 1998; White, 2008). Green criminological scholarship has, thus, already paid attention to theoretical questions of whether and how justice systems deal with crimes against animals and has begun to conceptualise policy perspectives that can provide contemporary species justice alongside mainstream criminal justice. Links have also been made between wildlife crime and drugs (South and Wyatt, 2011; Wyatt, 2013) and between animal abuse and human violence (Ascione, 1993; Linzey, 2009a; Petersen and Farrington, 2009; Nurse, 2013a). Such links provide compelling arguments for animal harm (Nurse, 2013a) to be considered within justice systems as a core focus of law enforcement practice. In particular, this is the case in respect of considering deviant or criminal behaviour directed at animals as being part of a continuum of offending behaviour; both as possible indicator of future offending (Hutton, 1998; Lockwood and Ascione, 1998; Nurse, 2013a) and a means of better understanding criminality’s complexity.

This book broadly falls under green criminology’s ecological justice and species justice perspectives (Benton, 1998; Beirne, 2007; White, 2008), examining the enforcement of wildlife legislation and the ideological and policy perspectives that determine enforcement practices. While generally there is no binding international treaty on animal protection (Nurse, 2013a), wildlife laws exist at both international and national levels and wildlife crime is recognised as an area of importance for international enforcement efforts by policing agencies (Akella and Allan, 2012; Interpol, 2014). However, one contention of this book is that wildlife crime is not generally considered within the sphere of mainstream criminal justice; the effect of which is that policies developed to address problems of wildlife crime often lack sufficient criminological focus and may not be effective. This book explores whether (and the degree to which) wildlife crime policies are formed within an institutional and ideational isolation which fails to address the gap between what is legislated and what is implemented in terms of the enforcement of wildlife crime. It also explores whether the reactive response predominantly favoured by governments in mainstream criminal justice and alternatives to the use of prison sometimes (and currently) pursued in mainstream criminal justice policies are considered in the development of wildlife and conservation crime policy. Central questions considered in this book are: how should wildlife laws be enforced; and how effective are current enforcement approaches? Accordingly, this book examines different perceptions and perspectives on wildlife crime analysing public policy responses to wildlife and conservation criminal justice in light of general theories and experience of crime and punishment. The book is intended not just for academics studying green criminology or environmental law but also for a practitioner, ‘activist’ or policymaker audience (including legislators) interested in understanding the scope of wildlife law enforcement and the practical difficulties encountered in providing an effective system of wildlife protection.

The importance of studying wildlife crime

White (2013a) identifies that the study of environmental harms, laws and regulations has historically been left to other disciplines. The consequence of this has been that of ‘little room for critical examination of individuals that kill, injure and assault other life forms (human, animal or plant) by poisoning the earth’ (White, 2013a: 25). Wildlife crime’s importance as an area of criminological study is not indicated merely by detailing the number of incidents and the number of birds, animals or mammals killed in each year. This is because, although the actual number of wildlife crime incidents may be relatively small, wildlife crime provides a case study of policing, criminal behaviour, NGO activity and environmental law enforcement. As a distinct area of ‘green’ criminology, wildlife crime holds great significance in studying crime and criminal activity for a variety of reasons:

• Its ecological significance in respect of negative impact on biodiversity far outweighs the effect on individual wildlife. Wildlife crime has the potential to make entire species extinct or impact on population spreads with long-term impacts for biodiversity.

• It is an area of criminal justice where NGOs exert considerable influence on policy and also carry out operational law enforcement activities. Public–private partnerships reflect the need for specialised knowledge in environmental crime investigation (White and Heckenberg, 2014). Particularly in wildlife crime, NGOs with specialist conservation monitoring and investigative experience are an integral aspect of enforcement regimes providing an opportunity for criminological study of state-NGO co-dependence.

• Clear evidence exists of organised crime’s involvement in wildlife crime, viewed as a ‘soft option’ by various organised crime groups able to utilise traditional operations and transit routes with reduced risk of enforcement activity (Lowther et al., 2002). Links have also been made between wildlife crime and terror groups and militias in conflict zones (Nelleman et al., 2014).

• It provides an opportunity to study a distinct area of criminal behaviour and what the abuse of animals in the wild and wildlife exploitation might tell us about offenders (Linzey, 2009a; Nurse, 2011; Wyatt, 2013).

• It provides an almost unique opportunity to study a fringe/voluntary area of policing.

• It provides an opportunity to study the application of environmentalism, animal rights, green criminology and perspectives on environmental justice to a specific area of crime (Beirne, 2009).

• It is an emerging and expanding area of law with links to both criminal and international law.

In all of the above areas, wildlife crime is an important area of study for both traditional and green criminology. While the number of global wildlife crime incidents may be comparatively small their consequences for some of the world’s rarest and most threatened species of birds, mammals, plants, reptiles and trees are significant. One wildlife crime incident could, for example, involve a number of different birds or animals, while deforestation incidents have considerable impact on forest survival and dependent animals. Schneider (2008) and others have identified that wildlife trafficking has pushed some species to the brink of extinction. Nelleman et al. (2014) estimate that between 20,000 and 25,000 African elephants are killed each year by poachers; such numbers are unsustainable. In the United Kingdom, illegal persecution of wildlife through poisoning (birds of prey) and poaching (large mammals) and other means have helped some domestic species to become extinct. The red kite, for example, a native species in England has been the subject of a reintroduction programme following its extinction as a breeding bird through persecution, but the reintroduced birds continue to suffer from illegal persecution. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) considers that illegal persecution continues to affect the populations of wild birds of prey, although it is difficult to produce conclusive trends. The Society states that:

Whatever the true pattern the proven levels of continuing persecution are still very much a cause for concern and in respect of species such as red kite and hen harrier the situation remains critical to the extent that these species are actually endangered. Persecution also has detrimental effects on species such as golden eagle which is missing or occurs in reduced densities in some eastern parts of its range in Scotland.

(RSPB, 1998: 11)

Published studies (Bibby and Etheridge, 1993; Etheridge et al., 1997; Sim et al., 2001) have also indicated that the hen harrier, a bird which is heavily persecuted on UK grouse moors, is absent as a breeding species from areas of suitable habitat as a result of persecution and the range of the buzzard in Scotland has also been restricted. In other settings as a result of illegal hunting, wolves, lynx and other large carnivores are absent from areas of their range where they should occur (Essen et al., 2014). Wildlife crime’s effects can, therefore, adversely affect wildlife populations by limiting range or reducing populations.

Wildlife crime is also an interesting study of criminality and its causes. A variety of different offence types fall within the broad area of wildlife crime and not all offenders are motivated by money or even gain from their criminal activity (Nurse, 2011, 2013a). Yet criminological research has largely neglected wildlife criminality or critical evaluation of the different policies needed to address the different types of wildlife and other animal crime (Lynch and Stretesky, 2014). Instead, wildlife offenders are often treated as a homogenous group and policies aimed at dealing with wildlife crime do not appear to differentiate between the different offence types or offender.

While some offenders may be motivated by economic concerns, either in the form of direct personal financial gain or the protection of commercial interests, there may also be some offenders for whom the motivation is either a desire for power or control over a bird or animal, or a need to fulfil some behavioural trait in themselves. As in mainstream criminal justice, some wildlife offenders justify their activities by stating that wildlife crime is a victimless crime and that their activities should not really be considered to be criminal activities. In this way, wildlife crime can be compared to the controversy over some other forms of deviance or criminality such as illicit drugs consumption or sex crime. The comparison is further advanced by the fact that, in some aspects of wildlife crime, offenders are otherwise law-abiding individuals, whose wildlife-related criminal behaviour constitutes an aberration in an otherwise law-abiding lifestyle. Of course, this does not hold true for all wildlife offenders and there are, inevitably, those for whom wildlife crime is just another form of criminal activity. Given the varied nature of wildlife offending (Nurse, 2011), law and law enforcement policy need to understand the motivations and behaviours of wildlife offenders; the extent to which it does so has been discussed later in this book.

NGOs are not usually involved in practical law enforcement, but in wildlife crime; also, they assist the police and prosecutors and actively detect and investigate crime. Environmental NGOs have also traditionally collated information on the amount of crime that exists, while the statutory enforcement authorities (police, customs, etc) have only recorded crime data on an ad hoc basis. One consequence of this is that NGOs have, traditionally, been in a better position than the statutory authorities to say how much wildlife crime exists, and what the key problems are. This has given the NGOs a position of considerable influence in directing the law enforcement agenda to areas where they have a specific interest and where they have acquired considerable expertise. In effect, wildlife crime allows for the study of ‘private policing’ in an area of criminal justice policy where a considerable amount of law enforcement activity is still carried out on a voluntary basis by private bodies such as the RSPCAs uniformed Inspectorate (in respect of animal welfare crimes in England and Wales) or the RSPB’s Investigations Section which takes the lead on the investigation of some cases before they are taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS, the Public Prosecutor in England and Wales). Whereas in some areas, such as street crime, police functions are being privatised with the introduction of private security patrols, community support officers and street wardens, wildlife crime is an area where the policing function has traditionally been carried out by NGOs and it is only recently that statutory policing agencies have become active in operational wildlife law enforcement and are under pressure from NGOs to become more involved.

Wildlife crime is also of interest as a study of a fringe area of policing. This book discusses, for example, how wildlife law enforcement in the UK is still carried out on a largely voluntary basis with the police and prosecutors relying heavily on the work of NGOs and volunteers to detect and prosecute wildlife crime. It is also true that many of those police officers who are involved in dealing with wildlife crime do so on a voluntary basis. Despite the publicity that cases often attract, it is not a mainstream policing priority and so also offers a useful study of police classification of and attitudes towards crime, as the resources devoted to wildlife crime and the importance attached to it varies from (police) area to area and between jurisdictions. Yet some aspects of wildlife crime can be compared to white collar crime which Percy (2002) describes as ‘the corrupt practices of individuals in powerful positions’. In particular, those offences relating to the game rearing industry (where protected wildlife is killed illegally to ensure economic benefit for the commercial operation sometimes alongside legitimate predator contro...