CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The
absence of an accepted definition of wildlife crime has, we believe,
had a direct and negative impact on the public's perception of
wildlife crime. (Paragraph 6)
2. It
is unacceptable that those entrusted with the enforcement of our
current legislation do not have a clear and agreed definition
of the crime they are to police. Without an agreed definition
of wildlife crime, which is shared and acted upon by all of those
who work in the wildlife arena, we believe it is impossible for
any real headway to be made in the fight to reduce the incidence
of such crime. We call upon DEFRA, through the Partnership for
Action against Wildlife crime (PAW), to lead a cross Government
group to establish an agreed definition of wildlife crime, reporting
back within the next twelve months. (Paragraph 8)
3. The
Government must re-state its commitment to tackling wildlife crime.
(Paragraph 9)
4. We
see this refusal to accept wildlife crime as an issue deserving
of committed police resources as especially short-sighted given
the many links made between wildlife crime and serious and organised
crime. (Paragraph 10)
5. Wildlife
crime must be classified as recordable by the Home Office so that
police forces across England and Wales know that sufficient priority
needs to be given to tackling wildlife crime and so that they
can allocate the necessary resources to this work. We accept
that within this classification system there will probably need
to be some form of grading of wildlife crimes to reflect the level
of gravity of each crime. (Paragraph 11)
6. We
believe that a centrally managed, national database which records
all incidents of wildlife crime, as well as the details of all
successful and unsuccessful prosecutions mounted, must be established
as a matter of priority. The location of the database would seem
to most naturally sit in the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence
Unit (NWCIU) within NCIS. (Paragraph 13)
7. We
understand that, at the present time, the NWCIU does not have
sufficient staff or funding to allow them to take on responsibility
for the creation and maintenance of a national database of wildlife
crime. This must be reviewed by the Home Office and DEFRA as
a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 14)
8. Given
the advent of illegal internet trade, the links to serious and
organised crime, and the threat posed by those who use this method
to trade in endangered species, we believe that the level of resource
allocated to this work by DEFRA is simply not sufficient and must
be reviewed as a matter of urgency. At the same time resources
within the NWCIU must also be reviewed and the monitoring of
the illegal internet trade in endangered species must be central
to the tasking for this unit. (Paragraph 18)
9. The
damage that mechanically propelled vehicles (MPVs), including
4x4s, can cause is not insignificant and we would encourage DEFRA
to move quickly to close any loopholes created by the CRoW Act,
either by amending CRoW or by means of new legislation.
(Paragraph 22)
10. The
Environment Agency and DEFRA are working towards publication of
a contingency plan to tackle any outbreak of disease within the
fisheries environment, and we welcome their stated vigilance with
regard to fish imports and movements. We would like to see a
firm commitment to publication of the plan as quickly as possible,
at the latest by the end of this year. (Paragraph 24)
11. Any
central record of wildlife crimes will only be as good as the
information fed into it. It is vital, therefore, that all those
who contribute to that database do so using consistent and comparable
data. (Paragraph 26)
12. We
support the work of the Environment Agency and DEFRA seeking long
overdue amendments to current legislation which will enable the
Agency to police waterways far more effectively. We urge the
Government to ensure that sufficient parliamentary time is made
available for these amendments. (Paragraph 27)
13. We
believe it is essential that DEFRA, again working through PAW,
and in conjunction with key partners across government, should
establish clear and agreed definitions for those phrases in current
legislation whose lack of clarity hinders effective policing and
enforcement action. (Paragraph 28)
14. The
number and variety of the suggested amendments to both the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981, and other pieces of current legislation
and regulation, prohibits us from referring to all of them in
this report but we expect DEFRA to use the evidence provided to
this inquiry in their review. (Paragraph 29)
15. DEFRA
should re-examine all those sections of Part 1 of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 which currently require intent to be
proven and consider whether the word "reckless" can
be applied when the Act is amended (Paragraph 30)
16. We
would encourage DEFRA to include consideration of the issue of
incidental killing or injury in the course of a lawful operation
when it reviews Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
(Paragraph 31)
17. We
look forward to seeing the draft UK Marine Bill currently being
prepared by WWF-UK and would encourage DEFRA to work closely with
WWF-UK on fine-tuning the draft and securing parliamentary time
to take the Bill forward. (Paragraph 32)
18. This
failure to recognise the true impact of a wildlife crime, and
then apply a punishment commensurate with that impact, simply
reinforces the notion that wildlife crime is "low risk and
high reward" for offenders. (Paragraph 33)
19. We
would support a review of the powers available to English Nature,
and, at the very least, feel that it is vital that English Nature's
officers should be able to stop and check vehicles they find
on SSSI land. (Paragraph 35)
20. The
move to an integrated agency provides an excellent opportunity
for an essential review of the role, responsibilities and powers
that at the moment sit with English Nature. (Paragraph 35)
21. The
rate of disappearance of ponds from our countryside is a matter
for concern and we would urge DEFRA to work with the ODPM and
local authorities to halt this decline and, if necessary, provide
adequate protection through new legislation. (Paragraph 36)
22. We
believe that Local Authorities have a duty to ensure that any
work they undertake is carried out only after due care and consideration
has been given both to the possible impact on local flora and
fauna, and in full compliance with their own legal responsibilities.
(Paragraph 36)
23. Whilst
we can appreciate the value of setting targets for the consideration
of planning applications, they should not be so unrealistic as
to rule out the possibility of proper consideration of all the
pertinent facts, including environmental impact. The targets set
for local authorities are now almost ten years old. The ODPM,
in conjunction with local planning authorities, should revisit
these targets and ensure that they allow sufficient time for all
necessary checks to be made. (Paragraph 37)
24. The
lack of resources to enable local authorities to fulfil their
own statutory duties and responsibilities, in terms of conservation,
preservation, planning and in tackling wildlife crime reflects
at best a woeful ignorance on the part of those in charge and,
at worst, neglect or absolute disdain. Local authorities still
have a considerable amount of work to do to educate and train
their own workforce on their roles and responsibilities. (Paragraph
38)
25. We
urge DEFRA to ensure that no further time is lost and that the
necessary amendments are made to COTES to allow the Police to
deploy the additional powers provided by the Criminal Justice
Act 2003. (Paragraph 39)
26. The
absence of any clear, national view of the scale of wildlife crime
has a direct impact on the ability of those charged with enforcing
current legislation. If the scale and nature of the problem is
not known it is unlikely that the correct level of resources can
ever be allocated to deal with it. (Paragraph 41)
27. We
believe that there must be at least one full-time Wildlife Crime
Officer for each Police force. These officers must be fully trained
in intelligence gathering. (Paragraph 42)
28. We
would encourage Police Forces and those with enforcement responsibilities
to consider developing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to enable
them to work together for one off operations, identified through
the use of intelligence, which will allow them to better target
their limited resources. (Paragraph 43)
29. The
apparent failure of the Police Service to take advantage of the
NWCIUs work must be addressed by the Home Office and DEFRA. It
is a nonsense to have the NWCIU expending time and resources on
developing intelligence packages for police forces who have no
intention of devoting any real resources to the crime themselves.
This only serves to emphasise the need for wildlife crime to be
re-classified as recordable so that police forces feel compelled
to address these crimes. (Paragraph 44)
30. Whilst
we accept that intelligence is the way forward if there is to
be any hope of matching resources to activity, we are concerned
that the move to an intelligence led approach is not being sufficiently
well monitored to demonstrate the benefits of such a move. We
would, therefore, like to see a much more robust method of measuring
outcomes being devised by HM Customs (Paragraph 46)
31. We
are concerned that DEFRA do not have sufficient resources allocated
to the proposed review of Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981, which is due to commence with the publication of a consultation
document later this year (2004). As a result, there is a risk
that it will extend far beyond a timescale that would be reasonably
acceptable to those who depend on this legislation. DEFRA must
review the resources assigned to the review and also look beyond
the review to securing sufficient Parliamentary time to take through
the necessary amendments. (Paragraph 47)
32. Although
the UK is not a source country for most of this illegal trade,
we are one of the key transit and recipient countries, which makes
the international focus of the work of HM Customs, NWCIU and organisations
like TRAFFIC, WWF and IFAW of as much value to the UK as it is
to the source country. (Paragraph 48)
33. We
commend the work of both the North and South Wales Police Forces
and the Countryside Council for Wales as an exceptionally good
example of how joint working can benefit both parties and better
tackle wildlife crime. More secondments of this nature should
be considered. (Paragraph 51)
34. The
role of the Home Office has been shown to be absolutely crucial
in the fight against wildlife crime but their commitment has been
sadly lacking. The Home Office must re-engage with wildlife crime.
(Paragraph 53)
35. The
very fact that PAW has a membership of around ninety we believe
can be problematic and suggests to us that there is a need to
review and perhaps rationalise the number of agencies, bodies
and organisations involved in this area of work. (Paragraph 53)
36. We
believe that dialogue with the general public has been rather
hit and miss and, for the most part, the Government and, to a
certain extent, those working in the wildlife community, has failed
to achieve effective communication. (Paragraph 54)
37. We
cannot accept the travel industry argument that to hand out leaflets
warning their customers of the consequences of purchasing illegal
products whilst on holiday will somehow reflect badly on the travel
industry itself. This is clearly nonsense. The Department for
Trade and Industry should engage the travel industry in discussing
how best to get this, and possibly other important campaign leaflets,
into the hands of the travelling public. (Paragraph 55)
38. We
were encouraged by DEFRAs willingness to consider using the popular
media as a means of communicating with and educating the public
and would urge them to encourage programme makers to include useful
information about relevant current legislation and the possible
impact of certain behaviour within the body of their programmes.
(Paragraph 57)
39. We
urge DEFRA to ensure that the Code of Practice for the horticultural
sector is not simply an information leaflet to be ignored but
that it has some requirement for compliance built into it which
is then backed up by a proper monitoring process. (Paragraph
58)
40. We
believe the "Get Hooked on Fishing" campaign has benefits
to both the environment, the individuals concerned and the community
at large. We would encourage other local authorities and police
forces to emulate this campaign in their own areas and to use
the same principles for other areas of wildlife crime. We commend
the Durham Constabulary for their excellent work. (Paragraph
60)
41. We
believe that the link between wildlife crime and other serious
crimes, the clear and growing involvement of organised crime,
and the increased reliance on the internet for illegal trade in
protected species makes the argument for spending time and resources
on this area of crime compelling. (Paragraph 61)
| 
