Crime and punishment in the wildlife trade - WWF UK

7 Conclusions
Several themes have emerged from this report, many of which militate against the effective
protection of wildlife from illegal trade. International law, through the operation of CITES,
provides a framework which, although not perfect, sets out clear priorities and a rationale for
protecting the world’s threatened species. But it is essential that individual countries reflect the
principles of CITES in their own laws and practice. Education and training has a key role, so the
development of effective guidelines and awareness-raising programmes for those charged with
administering the law should be a priority.
Where the enforcement of law to combat the illegal wildlife trade is concerned, the challenges
in the UK context are considerable. Effective action would involve:
• an appropriate, workable and effective legal framework;
• the judicial and political will to enforce the laws within that framework;
• appropriate use of all available legal sanctions;
• adequate resourcing of those agencies responsible for enforcement;
• environmental vigilance, in terms of monitoring and updating CITES and EU listings in line
with the precautionary principle 84 ; and
• heightened public awareness of the consequences of the illegal wildlife trade, which would
underpin informed support for the full enforcement of the law; and
• environmental vigilance at all times.
There are varying and inconsistent approaches to the law and the imposition of penalties for
illegal wildlife trade. This clearly raises questions concerning any deterrent value. The fear of a
severe penalty is not sufficient on its own to deter; the potential offender must realise that there
is a certainty of detection and arrest, and that the authorities will prosecute. At present, this is
unlikely in the UK. The risk that wildlife offenders take is minimal, and the rewards extremely
high, when balanced against the chance of getting caught and the likely penalty that would
be imposed.
The penalty is not just an external matter or an occupational hazard – it signifies society’s
disapproval. Levels of tolerance can and do shift, as we have seen in attitudes to domestic
violence and drink driving. Change may be equally possible in relation to wildlife trade.
At present, many feel that the penalties imposed in most cases do not adequately signal the
seriousness and impact of offences that threaten the survival of species.
Recognition of the scale and impact of illegal trade as far as the UK is concerned is not explicit
in the courts’ treatment of the majority of offenders: with a handful of high profile exceptions,
the higher available penalties are not utilised. But change is possible: similar criticisms when
levelled at environmental prosecutions served to push forward the enforcement agenda and
yielded modest returns. There is now a perception that environmental crimes are more than just
regulatory offences and deserve to be treated in a manner that reflects social harm in
environmental damage. The same thinking should be applied to the protection of wildlife from
illegal trade, so that levels of penalty reflect its potentially irrevocable effects in terms of the
loss of species and threat to biodiversity.
84 As attempted in relation to the basking shark at COP11.
31