House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence

Letter and Memorandum from WWF-UK

INTRODUCTION

1. WWF is the world's largest and most experienced independent conservation organisation, with 52 offices working in more than 90 countries, and over five million supporters world wide. WWF-UK was launched in 1961 and since then it has funded more than 3,000 projects in the UK and spent some £64 million on conservation work overseas. WWF-UK has offices in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and a network of around 200 volunteer groups. It is a challenging, constructive, science-based organisation that addresses issues from the survival of species and habitats to climate change, sustainable business and environmental education.

2. In the last 15 years, WWF-UK has undertaken, or financially supported, a large number of high-profile environmental and wildlife cases in the UK and European Courts. This submission is made by the Legal Unit, whose role is to provide legal support to the organisation and to pursue projects, which establish WWF-UK as a nationally and internationally recognised Centre of Excellence with regard to environmental law and citizens' environmental rights.

Q.1 What is the scale and impact of wildlife crime?

3. For the purposes of the EJP Report[7], English Nature (EN) confirmed that less than 1% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are subject to criminal acts every year[8]. However, it would be misleading to suggest this figure is a true reflection of wildlife crime. The exploitation of wildlife is big business—Interpol estimates the world wide trade in endangered species is worth billion of US dollars a year and it seems illegal exploitation, including international smuggling of endangered species, is on the increase.

4. For offences involving wildlife trade and native species, the highest number of charges or summonses between 1987 and 2002 involved birds or birds' eggs and the lowest involved plants[9]. Table 1 (below) summarises the percentage of actions for each species group between 1987-2002 on the basis of data provided by TRAFFIC and WWF[10]. It can be seen that the proportion of cases for birds and their eggs increased from 47% to 63% in the study period.

5. There are a number of reasons why the highest number of charges or summonses involved birds or birds' eggs. First, the RSPB is extremely active in the prosecution arena—it has its own enforcement team and a network of volunteers providing support to police officers investigating bird crimes. The RSPB receives in excess of 600 reports of wild bird incidents each year relating to the destruction of birds and their nests and eggs. Second, TRAFFIC observes that a number of bird species involved in CITES are native to the UK and therefore appear more commonly in trade offences because they are more readily available than, for example, CITES listed mammals not native to the UK. Finally, bird cases are more likely to be prosecuted as there is a long history of prosecutions and case precedents and, therefore, a greater likelihood that prosecutors will progress bird cases than other species.

Table 1

PERCENTAGE OF ACTIONS IN EACH SPECIES GROUP (1987-2002)


Period	Birds and bird eggs	Reptiles, spiders and amphibians	Plants	Artifacts	Mixture	Total

1987-90	46.7%	26.7%	13.3%		13.3%	100%
1991-94	50%	27.8%	5.6%	16.7%		100%
1995-98	52.4%	4.8%	4.8%	33.3%	4.8%	100%
1999-2002	62.5%	6.3%	3.1%	12.5%	15.6%	100%
Total	54.7%	14%	5.8%	16.3%	9.3%	100%

6. Plant crimes[11] are not detected as often as those involving animals—partly because the public are not so aware that they are indeed crimes and are less likely to report them, and partly because there seems to be less interest in pursuing plant crime by enforcers. TRAFFIC observes this is not only about public awareness. Ultimately, there is so much trade in genuine artificially propagated plants that there is less need for illegal trade. Plant propagation in rare species offsets the need for illegal collection, especially due to the large volumes that can be produced from a few plants. Plants, if smuggled or illegally traded, are easier to conceal than animals and far less likely to be detected, especially if in seed form. Finally, the Police Service acknowledges that it is responsible for plant crime, but points out that the wording of Section 14 WCA 1981 causes difficulties for enforcers in relation to non-native species. Nonetheless, a number of convictions relating to the theft of wild plants have been obtained. Such theft is recognised as being financially rewarding and links to other areas of criminal behaviour are often found[12].

Q.2 Is the framework of national and European law and of international regulation robust enough to deal with wildlife crime effectively?

7. The protection of SSSIs was much improved by the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CroW) 2000, which created a new statutory right of access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land and increased the protection afforded to SSSIs. EN can now refuse consent for damaging activities and have new powers to combat neglect. There are increased penalties for deliberate damage to SSSIs and a new court power to order restoration. The Act also placed a duty on public bodies to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs and introduced improved powers to act against third party damage.

8. EN brought the first successful prosecution under these new provisions for third party damage to Sutton Lane Meadows SSSI in Wiltshire in February 2003[13]. The Court also made a restoration order to make the offender restore the SSSI to its former condition prior to the damage occurring. Similarly, in December 2003 EN also brought the first successful prosecution for damage caused by an occupier of an SSSI[14]. In September 2002, Cornish Goldsmiths allowed clearance work in preparation for a miniature railway on part of the West Cornwall Bryophytes SSSI, which resulted in the destruction of rare mosses and liverworts. The company was fined £3,000, ordered to pay costs of £10,000 and carry out restoration works estimated by EN to cost around £2,000.

9. EN now finds its powers to prosecute broadly adequate, although a few difficulties remain, including:

— many offences are committed by third parties but EN officers are unable to stop people/vehicles and request names and addresses. This sometimes hinders the investigation and detection process;

— EN investigators can also only request that suspected offenders take part in interviews (PACE 1984)—again this can hinder the investigation process; and

— EN does not have a formal and immediate power to require restoration following an offence being committed, but where it might not be in the public interest to bring a prosecution.

10. A number of EJP respondents are keen to improve powers regulating the marine environment. Section 36 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 empowers the Secretaries of State to establish statutory Marine Nature Reserves (MNR) to conserve marine flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features of interest. The MNR arrangements are, however, based upon the "voluntary" approach and are thus entirely dependent on securing the co-operation of all the local interests concerned, eg fishermen, divers, district and unitary authorities—to agree the detailed provisions for protecting a site. Furthermore, provisions within the WCA 1981 developed in a piecemeal fashion and were primarily targeted at crimes against terrestrial wildlife. As a result there have been no prosecutions for offences against marine wildlife since its passage in 1981[15].

11. Below low water, there is no equivalent to the Town and Country Planning system of development control that brings together regulation over the wide range of activities in a common framework. The management and consenting regimes for activities that are potentially damaging to the marine environment are largely sectoral, and environmental considerations are incidental to the main purposes and powers of the bodies that operate them.

12. The existing statutory structure in relation to the marine environment is extremely complex. In the 1990s, a myriad of policies came into effect in response to events and international obligations including the Water Resources Act 1991, the Water Industry Act 1991, the Transport and Works Act 1992, various Merchant Shipping regulations, offshore regulations and the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992. All of these place varying degrees of environmental responsibility on relevant bodies to take account of nature conservation when carrying out their functions, however, in the absence of an overarching marine policy framework, these responsibilities may be overlooked or poorly co-ordinated. Additionally, much of the policy and regulation governing the marine environment has been generated by international or European obligations including EC Directives on Environmental Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Wild Birds and Habitats and Species. Until recently, the Government believed the need to identify and designate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) did not extend beyond twelve nautical miles, however, in R v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & Ors, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd[16] the High Court held that the EC Habitats Directive could only achieve its aims if it extended beyond territorial waters. In late 2003, DEFRA consulted the public on proposals to extend the Regulations offshore—a welcome step forward.

13. However, this is only one piece of an intricate jigsaw. The UK Government's Interim Report on a Review of Marine Nature Conservation (RMNC)[17] revealed a widespread view that there was a need to revise and reform the present arrangements. WWF believes there is a need for a review of existing legislation and policies and that the solution is to produce overarching legislation—a UK Marine Act. WWF believes that anything less is unlikely to provide a proper framework for the necessary integrated and strategic approach to the management of the marine environment as a complete ecosystem.

14. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a number of important amendments to Part I of the WCA 1981 (which concerns the protection of species), including six months custodial sentences. For example, in the year after the CroW Act 2000 came into effect:

— Northumbria Police claimed the first search warrant and arrest with a suspect arrested for possession of a goshawk on the day the CroW Act 2000 came into effect;

— Norfolk Police used Section 18 of PACE to search 3 addresses after four men were arrested for taking little tern eggs;

— Merseyside Police made the first arrest for disturbance of a bat roost; and

— Northumbria Police secured its first prison sentence of four months for an egg collector.

15. While welcoming these amendments, a number of EJP respondents remain concerned about species protection. In general, legislation protecting species listed on the Schedules of the WCA 1981 has evolved in a piecemeal fashion and, as a result, some of it is poorly worded. For example, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary notes that Section 9 of the WCA 1981 requires the protection of areas important for animals listed on Schedule 5, but defining areas important for resting or shelter for cetaceans and basking sharks can be very problematic.

16. There are a number of other shortfalls remaining in the legislative framework for species protection. An analysis of data provided by the Home Office relating to various wildlife acts[18] shows a very low conviction rate for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992[19]. North Wales Police explained that the enforcement of this Act often depends upon offenders being caught in the act of committing offences. Improving the success rate therefore turns on granting the Police powers of entry onto land, arrest, and search warrants.

17. The absence of a specific power of arrest for some wildlife offences is a significant shortfall in Police powers. HCT cited a case at Branksome (Poole), where an Inspector had decided that the lower half of a single coastal development plot should be left natural for its three protected lizards and their habitat. The house was built, but the owner immediately set-to landscaping the whole plot. HCT discovered the work and called the Police, who threatened to arrest the gardener unless he stopped. The landowner correctly challenged the Police's power of arrest, and duly completed his landscaping.

18. The RSPB report that another constraint on the Police is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 which governs the circumstances in which the statutory enforcement authorities can undertake surveillance, what permissions are required etc. It exists to safeguard the authorities from accusations, such as an invasion of privacy, under Human Rights legislation. The problem is the Police can only obtain permission for surveillance with respect to serious crime, and wildlife crime is not classified as serious crime, which makes the investigation of wildlife offences impossible.

19. To summarise, the EJP found the statutory regime within which the enforcement agencies operate to be broadly satisfactory, with the exception of the marine environment, species conservation and some specific powers of the enforcement agencies, which should be augmented as follows:

English Nature should be granted additional powers to:

— stop people/vehicles and request names and addresses;

— require suspected offenders to take part in interviews (PACE 1984); and

— require immediate restoration following an offence being committed when not in the public interest to bring a prosecution.

The Police Service:

— should be granted the power of entry onto land, arrest, and search warrants for wildlife offences; and

— wildlife offences should be listed as "notifiable" offences.

In addition, the statutory regime should be strengthened by:

— the introduction of a UK Marine Act, which enables stakeholders to take an integrated and strategic approach to the protection and management of the marine environment; and

— comprehensive species legislation, including a review Part I of the WCA 1981 with regard to its effectiveness for species conservation, including marine species, invertebrates and plants.

Q.3 Do responsible bodies[20] who deal with this type of crime have sufficient resources and powers to do so?

20. The main enforcement bodies addressing wildlife crime include English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales (in England and Wales respectively) and the Police Service. EN and CCW have statutory powers to protect land of nature conservation importance in England and Wales including Special Protection Areas (under the EC Wild Birds Directive), Special Areas of Conservation (under the EC Habitats and Species Directive), National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

21. The Police Service is the lead agency for investigating offences relating to species, working closely with HM Customs and Excise, voluntary organisations and other groups. Most forces now have at least one Police Wildlife Liaison Officer (PWLO), although they commonly carry out these duties in addition to their other policing responsibilities. Each Customs region has a designated Customs Wildlife and Endangered Species Officer (CWESO).

22. The enforcement agencies are aided by the activities of a number of voluntary bodies. Those most active in the field of wildlife trade include the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Environmental Investigations Agency (EIA), TRAFFIC International and WWF. NGOs assisting the Police Service to address offences against native wildlife include, amongst others, the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Herpetological Conservation Trust (HCT), Plantlife, RSPCA, RSPB, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the Shark Trust.

23. The Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) was launched in 1995 and brings together the Police Service, HM Customs and Excise, representatives of Government departments and approximately 90 other bodies with an interest in wildlife law enforcement. It provides a strategic overview of enforcement activities, considers and develops responses to strategic problems and examines issues of strategic concern. Its main objective is to support the networks of PWLOs and CWESOs, but it is also concerned with awareness raising, publicity, training and education, as well as supporting investigations.

24. WWF has addressed any statutory limitations in paragraphs 6-14 (above), however, in relation to resources, we note that both North Wales Police and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary highlight cost as an obstacle to prosecution. One operation involving the illegal trade in endangered species is known to have cost in excess of £1,000,000, but while wildlife crime is a policing issue it is not a policing priority, and finance for such operations and investigations is extremely difficult to obtain. As a result, a gulf exists between the Police's legal duty and their practical ability (and resources) to deal with environmental investigations. The PAW reports that some Police Forces have successfully attracted sponsorship, but that more struggle to find the resources to progress investigations. Consequently, the PAW believes that some investigations may be falling by the wayside and that research to develop DNA technology is also being delayed[21].

25. A number of specialist NGOs cited resource restrictions as a reason for not pursuing enforcement action themselves, particularly as that would mean displacing activities in other areas such as site management, species recording etc. However, most also believed enforcement action was "not their role"[22].

26. WWF calls for the Enforcement agencies such as the Police Service, CPS, Environment Agency and district and unitary authorities to be adequately resourced to investigate offences and pursue the full range of enforcement options available to them. Similarly, NGOs should be adequately resourced to support the enforcement agencies in fulfilling their statutory duties.

Do [enforcement bodies and the judiciary] treat wildlife crime with proper and due gravity?

Treatment of environmental issues

27. With respect to the judiciary, Magistrates routinely encounter only one or two cases relating to wildlife crime a year. The conviction rate for wildlife offences is generally lower than for environmental crime (typically 66% as opposed to between 90-100%), however, this may reflect statutory, resource and evidential limitations. While two EJP respondents reported Magistrates recognise these offences as serious[23]—others, such as Andrew Wiseman[24], report their lack of understanding of environmental issues to be "very worrying". Both the RSPCA and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary note the sentences imposed by the Magistrates vary from Court to Court, and do not necessarily bear any reflection on the seriousness of the case.

28. On a more positive note, EN found the views of Magistrates to be proportionate with society's view of the environment and, while they may occasionally struggle with the issues, they generally provide a "level playing field" for environmental justice. Many respondents are confident that the information for sentencers[25] will significantly help to address such inconsistencies—at least with respect to the judiciary.

29. The EJP also noted that the Magistrates' Association for London is considering the feasibility of transferring all non-CPS prosecutions to one dedicated location—in effect forming a specialist environmental court building out of administrative expediency. The EJP encourages and supports this proposal.

PENALTIES

30. Any person carrying out, without reasonable excuse, an operation which damages the special features of an SSSI is liable to a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited amount on conviction on indictment. The Courts are also empowered to make an order requiring that person to take certain actions to restore the land to its former condition. Failure to comply with such an order may be punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and a further fine of up to £100 per day for as long as the offence continues. Despite this, EN highlighted the particular difficulty in relation to habitats, which are often valued purely on their monetary value of the land itself, not the broader value that they have to society in general. EN believes that, in general, whilst the Courts take wildlife offences seriously, the fines remain relatively low.

31. An analysis of the RSPB's Spreadsheet of Wild Bird Offenders indicates the average fines for offences against birds vary from £30 (possessing an article capable of being used in an offence) to £1,800 (trading in wild birds)[26]. The RSPB explained that the wide range in fines reflect the different offences included within the data. First, there are two levels of protection afforded to wild birds under the WCA 1981[27], namely ordinary protection for commoner species and special protection for rarer species. Offences involving ordinarily protected species are punishable by level 3 fines while offences involving specially protected species can attract a level 5 fine. Offences involving trading in wild birds include prosecutions under COTES and possibly CEMA. Such charges are few in number, but can result in much higher penalties due to the importance of the species concerned and the higher maximum penalties.

32. TRAFFIC supplied the EJP with a table of successful prosecutions reported by the Police, HM Customs & Excise and DEFRA under COTES and CEMA (wildlife trade offences). This showed that the majority of penalties imposed were fines and costs of between £1 and £500 (41%). The next highest category was fines and costs above £500 (35%). Custodial sentences were only imposed in 20% of cases. In general, TRAFFIC reports that the fiscal value of wildlife is entirely subjective, and Judges base it on what they view society's values of the environment are.

33. Similarly, the RSPCA believes the level of penalties imposed by the courts has little correlation with the environmental impact caused by the offence. For example, in 1998, a Maltese national was found to be in possession of 800 British finches, which bore all the signs of having been recently taken from the wild. He was in the process of placing illegal rings on the birds in an attempt to pass them off as captive bred, so that they could be exported to Malta for sale in pet shops and open-air markets. A greenfinch caught in the wild would be worth around £2 in the UK, but can be sold as a captive-bred specimen for £6-8 in Malta. Using various contacts, the individual's travel record was checked and it was estimated that during the previous 12 months, he had been responsible for exporting in excess of 25,000 birds—which means he stood to make a clear profit well in excess of £100,000.

34. WWF notes the penalties associated with wildlife trade offences often bear little or no relation to the profit to be made by those committing the offences. For example, highly lucrative "shatoosh" shawls, made from the fine hair of slaughtered Tibetan antelope, typically retail at between £2,000-4,000, black market rhino horn for up to £10,000 a kilo, and a pair of Lear's macaws is worth up to £50,000 on the black market. WWF believes that when considering the seriousness of these offences, the judiciary should first take into account the ecological impact of the offence and the impact on the sustainability of the species. When endangered species are involved it will often be the case that the case is more appropriately tried/sentenced in the Crown Court. In line with R v Howe, the level of fine should reflect any economic gain from the offence.

35. In relation to crimes against native species, a report by the Bat Conservation Trust and the RSPB refers to a case in which a property developer pleaded guilty to damaging a roost site for Natterer's bats contrary to Section 39(1)(d) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. The developer was fined £500 and ordered to pay £100 costs. The NGOs were disappointed with the fine on the basis that it did not reflect the environmental damage caused and was unlikely to deter those who may choose to disregard bat legislation in other building projects[28].

36. In relation to crimes committed by property developers, it is important for courts to take into consideration the environmental damage caused to species such as badgers, great crested newts and bats and the impact the development has on their habitats. It is often the case that fines are so small in relation to the profits being made by developers that they willingly accept the risk of court action and associated penalty as part of their business costs, rather than pay for expensive relocation or restoration projects.

37. The EJP notes that the average fine per case in relation to health and safety offences in 2001-02 was 39% higher than in previous years. The HSE feels that while there is still some way to go "we hope that this is a step towards fines which are truly proportionate to seriousness and which better reflect huge variations in the "wealth" of organisations"[29]. Many respondents believe a similar line of reasoning should be applied with respect to sentencing in environmental and wildlife cases.

38. EJP respondents noted that higher fines are not always a sufficient deterrent to would-be wildlife criminals. The RSPB reports a number of egg collectors repeatedly offend despite having received substantial fines—but that when custodial sentences are awarded (which they have been on at least five occasions for egg collectors since 2000) the number of reported nest robberies has fallen dramatically.

39. The EJP Report shows that custodial sentences are presently a rarity for environmental offences and represent a very low percentage of general criminal sentences[30]. However, the percentage of custodial sentences imposed for wildlife offences is rather more encouraging. Table 2 (below) indicates the proportion of custodial sentences awarded for a number of environmental and wildlife offences.

40. This data confirms a growing recognition of the nature and impact of wildlife trade offences within the higher judiciary. For example, in R v Sissen, a case involving the illegal import into the EC of one of the most endangered birds in the world, the Lear's macaw (only 150 birds remain in the wild), the defendant was imprisoned for 30 months. Of as much interest as the jail term is the comment of Mr Justice Ousley who stated that: "the law is clear as to where the interests of conservation lie. These are serious offences. An immediate custodial sentence is usually appropriate to mark the gravity and the need for deterrence."

Table 7

PROPORTION OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCES IMPOSED IN RELATION TO VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE OFFENCES


Datasource	Type of Offence	Custodial Sentences (as % of total penalties)

Environment Agency (1999-2002)	Waste[31]	1.83%
TRAFFIC/WWF[32] (between 1987-2002)	Trade in: Birds and bird eggs Reptiles, spiders and amphibians Plants Artifacts Mixture	19.1% 8.3% 20% 14.3% 50%

41. EJP respondents welcomed the judiciary's approach in this regard, but the RSPB believes the use of custodial sentences should also be considered more routinely for those committing serious and persistent crimes against native species. Graham Elliott observes "apprehending collectors is comparatively easy but catching those responsible for killing birds of prey is far more difficult. At the moment, those responsible still believe they cannot be caught, and even if they were would still most probably receive a fixed penalty on conviction. Until one or two are convicted and awarded a custodial sentence, financial penalties alone are unlikely to change the situation".

42. North Wales Police highlight the need to ensure tougher penalties and custodial sentences are addressed consistently across the UK. In this respect, the Guidance for sentencers should be adapted, if necessary, for use in the Crown Court and other UK jurisdictions. Furthermore, the guidelines should be revised to incorporate other, perhaps less frequently encountered, but nonetheless important areas of environmental crime, such as "bread and butter" offences dealt with by the RSPCA and the Police Service on a daily basis[33].

43. Finally, WWF was pleased to report that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has increased the maximum possible custodial sentence for offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES) from two to five years[34]. This will make such offences "arrestable offences" under s 24 PACE 1984 and give the police additional powers, eg the power to enter and search premises without a warrant that are owned or occupied by a person under arrest for such an offence[35]. Similarly, it will also grant the police the powers to take fingerprints, obtain DNA samples, compel suspects to be interviewed and, where appropriate, bail suspects to court with conditions.

44. With respect to wildlife trade offences, the Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines 2002 recommend the prosecuting authority should be awarded reasonable costs reflecting the costs of the investigation, file preparation and presentation. The Court of Appeal set out principles in R v Associated Octel Ltd[36], which were approved and reviewed in R v Northallerton Magistrates' Court, ex parte[37], which determined that costs should not be seen as disproportionate to the fine.

45. In relation to penalties for wildlife crime, the EJP Report calls for:

— the introduction and application of tariff guidelines for environmental and wildlife offences, operating alongside the Guidance;

— the judiciary to place particular emphasis on the environmental or ecological impact, or potential ecological impact, of an offence. Wherever possible, the level of fine should reflect the economic gain arising from the offence. Magistrates should be encouraged to take account of the maximum fine available for wildlife offences;

— the judiciary to apply the full range of sentencing options available to them, ie the imposition of Community Service Orders and the greater use of custodial sentences for serious environmental or ecological offences, including offences under the WCA 1981 and CroW Act 2000;

— The Courts are urged to routinely award successful individuals and organisations bringing environmental and wildlife cases all reasonable costs of investigation and legal costs. With respect to corporate offenders and offences involving wildlife trade, the order for costs should not be disproportionate to the fine imposed; and

— enforcement agencies and voluntary organisations to publicise enforcement action wherever possible and appropriate.

46. The EJP also recommended the information for sentencers be expanded to cover other "bread and butter" issues dealt with by the Police Service and the RSPCA and information on sustainable development. Guidance should be produced for use in the Crown Courts and accompanied by a programme of training for Crown Court Judges (a responsibility of the Department of Constitutional Affairs). The effectiveness of the information for sentencers should be monitored and evaluated.

47. Finally, the EJP supports the designation of specialised Magistrates' Courts and/or Magistrates.

Q.4 Is there sufficient dialogue and co-operation across Government and amongst the various bodies responsible for dealing with this type of crime?

48. There is no central record of reports of wildlife offences, nor any comprehensive information about how many reports lead to action by the enforcement authorities, and subsequent prosecution. In fact, the Police Service reports that wildlife offences do not have to be recorded as crimes, to the extent that only a few forces could supply data showing the extent of the issue. This makes it difficult for enforcers to prioritise their efforts where they are most needed, assess the extent to which their activities are making an impact on wildlife crime and, in turn, pass information back to the relevant scientists, policy makers and enforcement bodies responsible for setting targets and priorities.

49. In April 2002, PAW launched the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit (NWCIU) as the national focal point for wildlife crime related intelligence. The priorities identified by the Unit are the illegal trade in caviar, birds of prey and parrots, reptiles, illegal trading of traditional East Asian medicines and the illegal trade in derivatives such as ivory and shahtoosh. The Unit also welcomes information about issues such as badger baiting and other bird crime. WWF suggest that one possibility could be that the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit (NWCIU) could be funded to establish and maintain a central record of wildlife offences, including not only convictions but all recorded incidents. In order to facilitate this, wildlife offences should be "notifiable" offences.

50. Finally, to support this in policy terms, the EJP notes the recommendation made by Capacity Global that the delivery of policy relating not only to environmental quality, but also regeneration, social inclusion, health and legal services, is required from the DCA, DEFRA, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health[38].

CONCLUDING REMARKS

51. The EJP Report shows that despite a number of recent improvements in domestic legislation and awareness within the judiciary, there are still significant shortfalls in the protection of wild species and their habitats. WWF calls on the Sub-Committee to highlight inadequacies in the protection of the marine environment, species legislation and some specific powers of the regulatory bodies. We also call on the Sub-Committee to encourage the judiciary to regard offences against wildlife with due seriousness and to use the full range of sentencing options available to them in order to deter would-be and persistent offenders. Finally, we call upon the Sub-Committee to press for the central recording of wildlife offences, to enable the Government to obtain a clear and objective picture of the scale of wildlife crime.

April 2004

7 See http//www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/envirojustice.pdf Back

8 EJP Report, Appendix 5, figure 6.1. Back

9 EJP Report Appendix 5, figure 7.1. Back

10 EJP Report Appendix 5, figure 7.13. Back

11 Part I, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Back

12 Sergeant Peter Charleston, North Wales Police, Pers Comm. Back

13 See www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story. Back

14 Under S.28P(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as substituted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). Back

15 Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Pers Comm. Back

16 (2000) Env LR 221. Back

17 See http://jncc.gov.uk/marine/marine-habitat/survey/mncr.htm Back