Green Criminology Wildlife Trade - Essay Example

?Green Criminology: Wildlife Trade Carrabine et al. (2009, p. 3) pointed out that “criminology has many meanings but at its widest and most commonly accepted it is taken to be the study of crime, criminals, and criminal justice.” Sumner’s “The Blackwell Companion to Criminology” in 2004 recognized “globality” and “glocalization” as well as deviance, consumerism, white-collar culture and setting, “hacktivism,” and gender issues crimes but unfortunately failed to include crimes related to the environment. However, Briggs and Friedman (2009, p. 32) mentioned that crimes in the 21st century include crimes related to the environment. Potter (2010a, Slide 6) explained that criminology is concerned with crimes, particularly with acts and omissions regulated by criminal law, as well as with harms or victims, and justice. Given this notion of criminology, Potter (2010a, Slide 6) argued that green criminology has to be concerned with environmental or ecological justice. Eman et al. (2009, p. 474) explained that in green criminology, victims can indeed include non-humans. It appears obvious that green criminology involves the study of crimes on the environment, covering the damage or harm that man can do to the environment. To the extent that the harm or destruction negatively affects man’s existence or way of life and to the extent that man installs laws prohibiting destruction on the environment, any act that destroys or harms the environment can be considered as a crime against man. The notion of harm in the crime can be guided by anthropogenic, biocentric, or ecocentric perspective (Gibbs et al. 2010, pp. 124-127). Anthropocentrism refers to a philosophical outlook that places man as the centre of concerns; a biocentric perspective takes life to be the focus of concerns; and, finally, the ecocentric perspective takes ecology to be focus of concern. The work of Gibbs et al. 2010 discussed the matter although the take-off is conservation criminology not green criminology in general. Green criminology includes conservation criminology. In my opinion, it is possible to have a strong environmentalist or green perspective even if one is anthropocentric. For example, biodiversity conservation is considered important not only for the survival of specific species but also for man’s survival. A green perspective can also be founded on biocentrism as well as ecocentrism. To the extent that an act is a legal crime, however, would depend much on human or social legislations or laws. With or without the legal laws that can declare certain acts as illegal or crimes, it is possible to do a victimology or a study of the victims: it is possible to assess how destroying or harming a feature of the environment can harm man or the physical environment in which men live. Harming the environment may not be a legal crime but even if it is not a legal crime, it can be considered a crime to the extent that it harms the environment and ultimately man. According to Potter (2010a, Slide 8), green criminology is still a developing field that may or may not be seen as a sub-discipline of criminology. Green criminology is an attempt to apply criminological ways of thought to environmental problems (Potter 2010a, Slide8). It is still a growth area in intellectual thought (Potter 2010a, Slide 8). Potter cited the work of author Rob White in “Crimes against Nature” where the latter ended his chapters with the question, “where to from here?” Thus, Rob White’s book represents an attempt to build on what is available and advance green criminology. Given that green criminology is a relatively new field, it is alright therefore to make innovations on how environmental issues can be tackled. As environmental criminology is an attempt to apply the criminological ways of thought on environmental concerns, the topic of wildlife crime, especially illegal wildlife trade, can be discussed in terms of the following questions. What are wildlife crimes? What are the potential harms to man and the environment from wildlife crimes? What are the enforcement problems on wildlife crimes? Why is there a motive to commit wildlife crimes? What networks for crimes do environmental crimes use? What are the ways forward? Wildlife crimes. In 2004, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee of the United Kingdom found out that there is no “agreed definition” on what wildlife crime is. Nevertheless, the Committee defined that “wildlife crime is any action which contravenes legislation which govern the protection of the UK’s flora and fauna” (House of Commons Environment Audit Committee 2004, p. 9). According to the Committee, wildlife crimes can be categorized as to whether the crime was committed as a result of ignorance, neglect, or as a result of deliberate act. The Committee clarified further that that there are acts that harm wildlife that are unlawful and, therefore, criminal, and acts that harm wildlife but are not unlawful and, therefore, not criminal (p. 9). The United Kingdom House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee document, thus, highlights that destruction of the environment will be considered a crime when the acts committed are prohibited by legislation. An act may be highly destructive of the environment and harmful to man but may not be a legal crime. This writer believes however that the scope of green criminology must be proactive: green criminology must be capable of identifying activities that harm the environment non-illegally as well as activities that harm the environment that are already deemed illegal. Knowing what activities harmful to the environment that are not yet deemed illegal provides a basis for legislative reforms that a criminologist may recommend to lawmakers for appropriate legislation. It is also important for criminologist to find out whether the acts harmful to the environment but not yet legal crimes are taking place out of ignorance, negligence, or simply because penalties are not there to protect the environment or wildlife. Acts that take place because of ignorance may require educational or information reforms or policies or legislations in the information or education sector. Negligence may be addressed through stronger legislations, penalties, or punishment. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee reported that, “the absence of an accepted definition of wildlife crime has, we believe, had a direct and negative impact on public’s perception of wildlife crime” (p. 10). Unfortunately, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee did not provide empirical evidence for their assertion but it may be appropriate to assume that the Committee has arrived at their findings based on consultations. A criminologist could have studied deeper the “crime”, something which criminologists are expected to do, and offer empirical evidence that may or may not support the Committee’s analysis of the situation, particularly the Committee’s view that the absence of an accepted definition of wildlife crime contributed negatively and directly to the public’s perception of wildlife crimes. Harm to man and the environment of wildlife crimes. Wildlife crimes have two victims: one set of victims are the flora and fauna and the second set of victims are people. Biocentrism argues that flora and faunas have the right to life, too (Rai et al. 2010, p. 9). It holds that “the human is just one among the multitude of living specie and is not more important than others on this earth” (Rai et al. 2010, p. 9). Biocentrism tends to highlight perceived complexities of nature and emphasize the interdependence and “responsibility” among living beings (Rai et al. 2010, p. 9). The philosophical perspective of biocentrism is associated with the “deep ecology” perspective of Arne Naess (Rai et al. 2010, p. 9). Rai et al. (2010, p. 9) emphasized that while anthropocentrism” fights pollution and resource depletion in order to preserve human wealth and affluence,” deep ecology do so “out of deep-seated respect and even veneration” for all forms of life. Ecocentrism goes further. Ecocentrism holds that members of the ecosphere that is inclusive of everything organic and inorganic in the environment because life forms and the non-life forms of the physical environment are dependent on each other (Rai et al. 2010, p. 9). In my opinion, it is possible to incorporate the position of biocentrism of the interdependence of life forms with the anthropocentric perspective. For example, one can argue that birds and butterfly help in the fertilisation of agricultural crops and, thus, biodiversity of life forms in an area is essential to man’s survival. Likewise, one can also incorporate the ecocentric idea that lifeforms and non-life forms in an ecological area are mutually dependent on each other. It can be argued for example that the general physical environment determines certain life forms in an area. Altering the physical environment disrupts the biodiversity profile and, consequently, even the capacity of the area to produce food. Large-scale mining, for example, especially open pit mining, can remove a whole mountain or even disrupt the flows of rivers in a certain area. It can remove an entire forest and affect a community’s capacity to derive fish from the river systems. Of course, an area which has lost its forest to urbanizaton can produce industrial or financial centres rather than agricultural zones but too much conversion can be detrimental to man’s existence given the threat of global warming as large areas are deforested. The Food Agricultural Office of the United Nations (2011, p. 1) has emphasized the importance of biodiversity to food and agriculture production. Legislations related to wildlife. In the case of the United Kingdom, the legal framework or legislations that determine which acts are to be considered criminal or not criminal in wildlife trade or activities involve the Control of Trade in Endangered Regulations known as COTES 1997, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) 2000 that amended the 1981amendment. Legal infirmities rendered UK’s environmental laws ineffective in preventing wildlife crimes. For example, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee noted that the while damage to bat roost is a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Conservation (Natural Regulation), the term “bat roost” was never defined clearly and the infirmity of laws produced a situation that hindered criminal prosecution and law enforcement (p. 19). The assessment of the World Wildlife Fund UK is that “the attitude of the UK’s legal system towards the ever-increasing illegal wildlife trade is inconsistent” (Lowther et al. 2002, p. 5). Lowther et al. (2002, p. 5) elaborated that UK’s legal system “does not adequately reflect the nature and impact of the crimes, and it is erratic in its response.” Nevertheless, Lowther et al. (2002, p. 5) acknowledged that there are “positive indications that change is taking place, thanks largely to increased political awareness of environmental issues, and increased lobbying by non-governmental organisations”. This implies that while imperfections may be found in UK’s laws for addressing wildlife crimes, the situation is improving. Lowther et al. (2002, p. 5) complained that UK’s legal system is ineffective against wildlife crimes in many areas because “it allows the imposition of low penalties in the majority of prosecuted cases”. In contrast, in the United States, “custodial sentences are often imposed for wildlife trade offenses and level of fines is higher” (Lother et al., 2002, p. 5). Enforcement problems. Enforcement of wildlife protection laws has become increasingly difficult. One phenomenon that multiplied the difficulties of addressing wildlife crimes has been associated with speed that internet trading has provided to wildlife crimes. Basically, however, enforcement of wildlife laws has been difficult for the United Kingdome because financial rewards from wildlife trade are high but with “little risk of detection and penalty” (Lother et al. 2002, p. 5). Protecting UK’s wildlife is important because biodiversity ensures that a gene pool will be available for food production given a changing environment with climate change (Food and Agriculture Office 2011, p. 1). Motivation to commit wildlife crimes and organized crime. The motivation to commit wildlife crimes can result from the lucrative income that people can get from wildlife trade (House of Commons Environment Audit Committee 2004, p. 10). Zimmerman (2003, p. 1669) pointed out that wildlife trade has been profitable with about 200,000 to 600,000 animals illegally exported annually. She pointed out that because of the high monetary value associated with the possession of wildlife, owning wildlife animals has become a status symbol among Columbian drug lords (Zimmerman 2003, p. 1669). Organized crime networks are also the ones into wildlife trade. It is possible therefore that there is a commonality of networks being used for drugs and other illegal trade and wildlife smuggling. Although evidence may have to be dug out, environmental crimes may have a link with drug crimes because the same networks for the crimes are used. The way forward. The UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has identified two major reforms that are required to advance the work of prosecuting wildlife criminals. According to the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2004, p. 15), one of the reforms required is the need to set up a “centrally managed, national database which records all incidents of wildlife crime, as well as the details of all successful and unsuccessful prosecutions” and another is to increase funding and staffing for the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit (NWCIU). Thus, if instruments and equipment are crucial to addressing wildlife crime, then it follows that studies on the role of tools and equipment in arming the law enforces in implementing laws related to wildlife crimes and in proactively preventing wildlife crimes should be among the concerns of a criminologists. Conclusion. In this work, we have attempted to do a green criminology analysis of wildlife trade. The data that I have gathered may not be exhaustive but I deeply believe that the discussion has been sufficient to validate the usefulness of adopting a criminological perspective to green concerns. Adopting a criminological perspective to green or environmental concerns will allow us to address problems related to the environment in a manner that would allow us to address environmental crimes thereby protecting both the environment and humanity. Perhaps, one of the steps forward towards the birth of green criminology is to make several acts that destroy the environment as criminal acts, study why these crimes emerge in the first place, and study how society can eliminate the emergence of these crimes using penal and other social measures. These matters are also important for wildlife and wildlife trade as well. References Briggs, S. and Friedman, J., 2009. Criminology for dummies. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Carrabine, E., Cox, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K., and South, N., 2009. 2nd ed. Criminology: A sociological introduction. Oxon: Routeledge Publishing. Eman, K., Mesko, G., and Fields, C., 2009. Crimes against the environment: Green criminology and research challenges in Slovenia. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 11 (4), 574-592. Food and Agriculture, 2011. Climate change and biodiversity for food and agriculture. Geneva: Food and Agriculture Organization. Available: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/information/Biodiversity-Infosheet-En.pdf [Accessed 19 June 2011]. Gibbs, C., Gore, M., McGarrell, E., and Rivers, L., 2010. Introducing conservation criminology: Towards interdisciplinary scholarship on environmental crimes and risks. British Journal of Criminology, 50 (1), 124-144. House of Commons Environment Audit Committee, 2004. Environmental crime: Wildlife crime. House of Commons, London: The Stationery Office Limited. Lowther, J., Cook, D., and Roberts, M., 2002. Crime and punishment in wildlife trade. Surrey: World Wildlife Fund. Potter, G., 2010a. Introduction: What is green criminology? PowerPoint Slides. London: London South Bank University. Potter, G., 2010b. Green Criminology: Roots and rationale. PowerPoint Slides. London: London South Bank University. Potter, G., 2010c. The nature of harm: Towards an environmental victimology. Powerpoint Slides. London: London South Bank University. Rai, J., Thorheim, C., Dorjderem, A., and Macer, D., 2010. Universalism and ethical values for the environment. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Sumner, C. (ed.), 2004. The Blackwell companion to criminology. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. Zimmerman, M., 2003. The blackmarket for wildlife: Combating transnatinal organized crime in the illegal trade. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 36, 1657-1639. Read More