Due to the detrimental impact of wildlife crime on the continued survival of biodiversity, international policymakers give it priority on environmental agendas, but in contrast with this prioritisation, no international convention or combat strategy exists whereby countries can determine best practice to combat wildlife crime on a national level. These legal gaps may possibly be attributed to the lack of a universal definition of wildlife crime. Currently it seems that no definition of wildlife crime (or even a related concept) is recorded in any international environmental conservation treaty or policy, which leads to inconsistencies and anomalies in the literature.
As a result of the abundant biodiversity in South Africa, wildlife crime occurs on a daily basis. Yet no dedicated South African legislation exists that defines wildlife crime and deals exclusively with the combating of wildlife crime. The combating of wildlife crime is simply addressed within the broader South African environmental law framework.
The objective of this article is twofold. First, it aims to construct and propose a possible conceptual definition of wildlife crime. Secondly, the article analyses related concepts and definitions, guided by the proposed definition, to determine what the concept of wildlife crime entails within the South African environmental law context. To achieve this, a theoretical study was carried out by means of a literature survey comprising legal and other interdisciplinary sources.
In order to formulate a proposed definition of wildlife crime, the concepts environmental harm, environmental crime and wildlife crime are considered to determine their coherence and interconnection. Environmental harm, a concept developed and described mainly by green criminologists, refers to the degradation and destruction of natural environments due to overexploitation, misuse and mismanagement by humans. Examples include littering, pollution, unplanned urban expansion, reckless deforestation, irresponsible fishing practices, oil spills and war damage. As a result, environmental harm can, for example, lead to the destruction of habitats and declining food sources, which can further influence wild species’ natural resilience. Environmental crime refers to the deliberate evasion of environmental laws and regulations. A broad definition of environmental crime would state that all environmental harms are environmental crimes, while a narrow definition would determine that environmental crimes are environmental harms that are deemed to be illegal and punishable in terms of environmental legislation.
Five main environmental crime areas are identified, namely (a) illegal logging and timber trade; (b) illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; (c) illegal mining and mineral extraction; (d) illegal trade in controlled chemicals, hazardous waste and ozone-depleting substances; and e) poaching and illegal trade in wild species (this is what is more commonly known as wildlife crime). The definitions of wildlife and crime are first separately considered, followed by a narrower consideration of the concept of wildlife crime. Wildlife is interpreted both in a wide and in a narrow sense and various conceptual approaches are considered. For the purposes of this article wildlife refers to animals in their natural state, traditionally untamed and distinguished from domestic animals. Crimes, within the context of wildlife crime, are acts or omissions that transgress the provisions of international treaties and policies or national environmental law and regulation. Associated definitions of wildlife crime describe it as a multistage operation consisting of numerous activities with a complex organisational structure. Four levels of activities that form part of wildlife crime can be distinguished, namely (a) the poaching of wildlife; (b) the transporting of and trade in wildlife; (c) the processing of wildlife into products; and (d) the distribution and sale of wildlife and their products. These activities can be placed on a continuum and they may not always take place in the same order, but wildlife crime always starts with the poaching of wildlife. Wildlife crime is also associated with other serious offences like fraud, corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.
Poaching threatens development of Botswana’s wildlife economy
After consideration of the concepts environmental harm, environmental crime and wildlife crime, a proposed definition of wildlife crime could read as follows: Wildlife crime is an area of environmental crime that causes environmental harm and consists of different levels of activities and related serious crimes, which are illegal and regulated in terms of international treaties and national legislation.
The term wildlife crime is not expressly used in any South African law or policy. Therefore, on the basis of the proposed definition, related definitions and concepts in relevant legislative provisions, regulations and environmental policies are considered and analysed in order to form a broad conceptual definition of wildlife crime within the South African context. The concept of wildlife crime is not guided by the concept of environmental damage, as the field of green criminology in South Africa is currently underdeveloped. Wildlife crime in South Africa is mostly limited to “restricted activities” and “prohibited activities” identified in national and provincial legislation and are considered unlawful. It is worth noting that the identified “restricted activities” are not expressly referred to as wildlife crime in the relevant national and provincial legislation. The committing of these acts outside the conditions of a permit, or what is contrary to other legislative provisions, can lead to criminal prosecution, which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment if the accused is found guilty of committing these acts. However, the application of the aforementioned legislation depends on the classification of the relevant species. Currently, South African legislation does not make a prominent, explicit connection between wildlife crime and related serious crimes, but document fraud is recognised as an unlawful act in this connection. The term wildlife crime is not expressly used in any South African law or policy. With the interpretation of relevant legislative provisions, regulations and environmental policies, it is clear that certain actions towards certain wildlife species within certain circumstances constitute crimes for which an alleged offender can be prosecuted. Consequently, such acts in South Africa are conceptually equivalent to wildlife crimes.
