Wildlife Trafficking: Harms and Victimization

  • Jennifer MaherEmail author
  • Ragnhild Sollund
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology book series (PSGC)


The Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT), involving the illicit sale or exchange of wild animals and plants globally, is one of the fastest growing black markets in the world and is commonly positioned alongside the illegal drugs, arms, and human trafficking trades in regard to the economic values involved. The types of offences, offenders, and victims in the trade are varied and complex. Offences include the trafficking of live animals (e.g. birds, reptiles), animal parts (e.g. ivory), and derivatives (e.g. bear bile). Offenders range from native hunters (e.g. poachers) to ignorant tourist (e.g. souvenirs) or organized criminals (e.g. rhino horn). Research suggests the escalation in the collection and killing of wildife is largely influenced by market forces, offenders being motivated by the potential for substantial economic gain, while consumer markets are expanding. The market for IWT ‘goods’ is linked to cultural and social norms—such as religious practice, health benefits, or status symbols—which influence different types of offenders (e.g. trophy hunters, traditional medicine users). This chapter focuses on the trafficking of animals, that as direct victims, dead or alive, usually are given little concern in the field, thus accepting the logic of the CITES convention which regards nonhuman animals as exploitable resources until the limit is reached for the endangerment of the entire species. The victimization can also continue for many of the animals ‘rescued’ and confiscated from the illegal trade—through routine euthanasia and long-term confinement in unsuitable conditions; in only a few cases animals are returned to the wild. Based on a case study involving the UK, Norway, Colombia, and Brazil, this chapter sheds light on the questions, What are the characteristics of wildlife trafficking? (What consumer practices are driving forces, and why?) How are animals (and humans) victimized? What are the common features of the ways in which these crimes are enforced in case study locations? Specifically, the IWT is poorly prioritized and resourced; the enforcement response is often uninformed and uncoordinated, while legislation is complex and disjoined leading to uncertainty and leniency in punishment. The chapter concludes with recommendations in regard to what may be done to prevent this harm.


European Union Organize Crime Live Animal Illegal Trade Domestic Legislation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andenæs, J. (1950). Almenprevensjonen-illusjon Eller Realitet [General deterrence—Illusion or reality], Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab, 33, 103–133.Google Scholar
  2. Beirne, P., & South, N. (2007). Introduction to green criminology. In P. Beirne & N. South (Eds.), Issues in green criminology (pp. xiii–xxii). Devon: WillanGoogle Scholar
  3. CITES (2013a). How CITES works. Accessed 27 April 2016.
  4. CITES (2013b). The CITES species. Accessed 27 April 2016.
  5. CITES (2016a). Control of trade in personal and household effects. Accessed 2 March 2016.
  6. CITES (2016b). Disposal of confiscated live specimens of species included in the appendices. Accessed 12 March 2016.
  7. CITES (2016c). What is CITES? Accessed 2 February 2016.
  8. Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(04), 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford, A. (1997). Making CITES work: Examples of effective implementation and enforcement. Cambridge: Traffic International.Google Scholar
  10. (2015). Convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) seizures and volumes. Accessed 12 March 2016.
  11. EFFACE (2016). European Union action to fight environmental crime. Accessed 27 April 2016.
  12. European Commission (2010). Wildlife trade regulations in the European Union. An introduction to CITES and its implementation in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (2016). The European Union and trade in wild Fauna and Flora, Accessed 27 April 2016.
  14. EU-TWIX (2015). EU-TWIX: A tool to facilitate information exchange on illegal wildlife trade in the European Union. Accessed 25 April 2016.
  15. Goyes, D.R. (2015). Denying the harms of animal abductions for biomedical research. In R. Sollund (Ed.), Green harms and crimes: Critical criminology in a changing world (pp. 170–208). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1979). Customs and excise management act 1979. Accessed 24 April 2016.
  17. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1997). The control of trade in endangered species (Enforcement) regulations 1997. Accessed 24 April 2016.
  18. Hill, J. (in press). A systems thinking perspective on the motivations and mechanisms driving wildlife poaching. In R. Sollund (Ed.), Green harms and crime: Social injustice, protest and oppression. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  19. Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S., Gordon, D. (2004). Beyond criminology: Taking harm seriously. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Interpol and IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) (2013). Project web: An investigation into the ivory trade over the internet within the European Union. Lyon: Interpol.Google Scholar
  21. Kievit, H. (2000). Conservation of the Nile Crocodile: Has CITES helped or hindered? In J. Hutton, & B. Dickson (Eds.), Endangered species—Threatened convention: The past, present and future of CITES. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  22. Lemieux, A. (ed.) (2014). Situational prevention of poaching. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lovdata (n.d.b.). Lov om jakt og fangst av vilt (viltloven). Accessed 19 May 2016.
  24. Lovdata (n.d.c.). Lov om forvaltning av naturens mangfold (naturmangfoldloven). Accessed 19 May 2016.
  25. Lovdata (n.d.d). Lov om dyrevelferd. Accessed 19 May 2016.
  26. Maher, J., & Sollund, R. (2016). Law enforcement of the illegal wildlife trade: A comparative strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats [SWOT] Analysis of the UK and Norway. In J. Schneider, A. Di Nicola, T. Wyatt (Eds.), Journal of trafficking, organized crime and security—Special issue on illicit trafficking in wildlife and forest resources. Boca Raton Brown Walker Press.Google Scholar
  27. Maldonado, A.M., Nijman, V., Bearder, S.K. (2009). Trade in night monkeys Aotus spp. in the Brazil–Colombia–Peru Tri-border Area: International wildlife trade regulations are ineffectively enforced. Endangered Species Research, 9(2), 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minnaar, A. (2013). The poaching of Rhino in South Africa: A conservation, organised and economic crime?. In D. Sorvatzioti, G. Antonopolous, G. Papanicolaou, R. Sollund (Eds.), Critical views on crime, policy and social control. Nicosia: University of Nicosia Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nassaro, M.R.F. (In print, 2016). Wildlife trafficking in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. In D.R. Goyes, H. Mol, A. Brisman, N. South (Eds.), Environmental crime in Latin America: The theft of nature and the poisoning of the land. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Pepperberg, I.M. (2009). The Alex studies: Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrots. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pires, S., & Clarke R. (2011). Are parrots CRAVED? An analysis of parrot poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 122–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pires, S., & Moreto, W. (2011). Preventing wildlife crimes: Solutions that can overcome the ‘tragedy of the commons’. European Journal of Crime Policy, 17(2), 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reeve, R. (2002). Policing international trade in endangered species. The CITES treaty and compliance. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  34. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rivalan, P., Delmas, V., Angulo, E., Bull, L., Hall, R., Courchamp, F., Rosser A.M., Leader-Williams, N. (2007). Can bans stimulate wildlife trade?. Nature, 447, 529–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider, J. (2012). Sold into extinction: The global trade in endangered species. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  37. Shepherd, C.R., Stengel, C.J., Nijman, V. (2012). The export and re-export of CITES-listed birds from the Solomon Islands. Petaling Jaya: Traffic Southeast Asia.Google Scholar
  38. Sina, S., Gerstetter, C., Porsch, L., Roberts, E., O’ Smith, L., Klaas, K., Fajardo, T. (2016). Wildlife crime. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  39. Sollund, R. (2011). Expressions of speciesism: The effects of keeping companion animals on animal abuse, animal trafficking and species decline. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5), 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sollund, R. (2013). Animal trafficking and trade: Abuse and species injustice. In R. Walters, D. Westerhuis, T. Wyatt (Eds.), Emerging issues in green criminology: Exploring power, justice and harm. London: Palgrave. 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sollund, R. (2015). Wildlife trafficking in a globalized world: An example of motivations and modus operandi from a Norwegian case study. In A. Francesco (Ed.), Problematic wildlife. A cross-disciplinary approach. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 553–573.Google Scholar
  42. Sollund, R., & Maher, J. (2015). Illegal wildlife trade: A case study report on the illegal wildlife trade in the United Kingdom, Norway, Colombia and Brazil. Accessed 12 April 2016.
  43. Svae-Grotli, I. (2014). En Forbrytelse å la Alvorlig Miljøkriminalitet Forbli Forseelser. [A crime to allow serious environmental crime remain misdemeanors], Miljøkrim, 1, 30–36.Google Scholar
  44. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2012). Wildlife and forest crime analytic toolkit (revised ed.). Vienna: United Nations.Google Scholar
  45. Van Uhm, D. (2014). Illegal wildlife trade to the EU and harms to the world. In T. Spapens, R. White, W. Huisman (Eds.), Environmental crime and the world. London: Ashgate. 43–67.Google Scholar
  46. Van Uhm, D. (2016). Uncovering the illegal wildlife trade. In the world of poachers, smugglers and traders. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Warchol, G., Zupan, L., Clarke W. (2003). Transnational criminality: An analysis of the illegal wildlife market in Southern Africa. International Criminal Justice Review, 13(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wellsmith, M. (2010). The applicability of crime prevention to problems of environmental harm: A consideration of illicit trade in endangered species. In R. White (Ed.), Global environmental harm: Criminological perspectives. Devon: Willan. 132–150.Google Scholar
  49. Wellsmith, M. (2011). Wildlife crime: The problems of enforcement. European Journal of Crime Policy, 17(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. White, R. (2013). Environmental harm: An eco-justice perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wyatt, T. (2009). Exploring the organization of Russia far east’s illegal wildlife trade: Two case studies of the illegal fur and illegal falcon trades. Global Crime, 10(1 & 2), 144–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wyatt, T. (2013a). Wildlife trafficking: A deconstruction of the crime, the victims, and the offenders. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) (2014a). How many species are we losing? Accessed 5 December 2014.
  54. WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) (2014b). Living planet report 2014. Species and spaces, people and places. Accessed 12 April 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and SocietyLecturer and Subject Leader in CriminologySouth WalesUK
  2. 2.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations