Is the UK tough enough on criminals that illegally trade wildlife?

Illegal wildlife trade s a hot topic at the moment – and rightly so. It threatens the extinction of many species as diverse as sharks, pangolins and tigers. It sometimes seems that not a week goes by without hearing of poached rhinos in South Africa or elephants in Tanzania.

So what is the UK doing to tackle illegal wildlife trade?
We should be proud that we’re already leading the way in many respects. The Government funds work internationally to stop the poaching, stop the trafficking and stop the buying of illegal wildlife products. Funded projects have included training Border Forces in the Horn of Africa on wildlife trade and improving wildlife forensics across Africa to increase the number of successful convictions.



WWF’s work at Heathrow Airport Border Force © WWF-UK / James Morgan

The UK has also hosted an international conference international conference on illegal wildlife trade back in 2014, which resulted in the Buckingham Palace Declaration that 41 countries adopted. Just recently in Hanoi, Vietnam, Heads of State and Ministers again met to discuss progress on tackling illegal wildlife trade nationally and internationally. The conference highlighted that many countries need to improve their enforcement and legislation related to wildlife crime.  It is exciting to learn that the UK will also be hosting the next conference on illegal wildlife trade in 2018.  This shows our dedication to fighting wildlife trade criminals.
Sentencing wildlife trade offences
One area, however, where the UK lags behind is in sentencing convicted wildlife trade criminals. A recent WWF report showed that the sentences given to those that have been convicted of illegal wildlife trade are inconsistent and lenient. By looking at 174 cases of illegal wildlife trade between 1986 and 2013 that resulted in convictions in England and Wales, almost three-quarters of cases resulted in non-custodial sentences. This means that they were not sent to prison.


A Tibetan antelope in central Tibet © naturepl.com / George Chan / WWF

Lax sentencing in the UK
For instance, in 2000, a company was found guilty of selling 138 shahtoosh shawls made from the wool of approximately 550 Tibetan antelope. This endangered species has maybe as few as 75,000-100,000 animals left in the wild – at least a third fewer than African elephants. The demand for the antelope’s luxury wool, which is reported to be the most expensive in the world, has pushed the species to the brink of extinction. Despite being listed on Appendix 1 of CITES, meaning that there is no legal international trade, demand for the shawls could still be threatening their survival. However, when tried in court, the company were only fined £1,500 and had to forfeit the shawls. If tried by a judge and jury, the company could have been sentenced to a fine of any amount.

Another example also clearly demonstrates the current lax sentencing of illegal wildlife trade in the UK. Earlier this year, an auction house was fined just £1,500 for selling hippo incisors, a sperm whale tooth and five pieces of elephant ivory (including four tusks). This was despite the maximum sentence for this crime being five years imprisonment for individuals or an unlimited fine for companies. In comparison, in 2014, the US courts sentenced a man to 70 months imprisonment for smuggling 30 rhino horns and ivory from the US to China.


Hippos are on Appendix II of CITES, meaning that they need permits to be traded internationally

The need for sentencing guidelines
Our report showed that one of the reasons for the lenient sentences imposed in the UK is that judges and sentencers might not be informed about the seriousness of the crime or the harm caused. WWF therefore believes that guidelines could help ensure that sentences given reflect the harm caused and potential profits made by criminals. Guidelines are produced by the Sentencing Council and set out clear ways that appropriate sentences can be reached. They look at the seriousness of the offences, as well as culpability and harm caused. However, to date, the Sentencing Council has no intention to create these guidelines.

Last year the Environmental Investigation Agency released a report evaluating the challenges and progress of some key countries that adopted the Buckingham Palace Declaration. The report made a number of recommendations, including imposing appropriate penalties and creating sentencing guidelines for wildlife trade crimes.

The criminal justice response to wildlife crime has largely been inadequate to turn the tide against the organised criminal syndicates involved in wildlife crime, which therefore continues to be a high profit, low risk crime – EIA

WWF are therefore calling for the Sentencing Council of England and Wales to create guidelines on illegal wildlife trade offences. Action taken by UK courts can have a significant effect both domestically and internationally. The UK Government is making welcome efforts to urge other countries to treat illegal wildlife trade seriously, but it must also do so itself, particularly by passing sentences that reflect the significant impacts of such crimes. Creating sentencing guidelines could be a clear way to show the world that we are leading the way in addressing illegal wildlife trade.

This is a repost from my WWF blog

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Styes, sleepless nights and swear words

Against trophy hunting but a meat-eater = hypocrite?

Quantity does not always mean quality