WHAT IS WILDLIFE CRIME?
4. During the course of the inquiry it became clear
that there is no agreed definition of what a wildlife crime actually
is. We can, of course, say very generally that wildlife crime
is any action which contravenes current legislation which governs
the protection of the UK's flora and fauna. There are general
distinctions that can be made between those wildlife crimes committed
as a result of ignorance, those resulting from neglect and those
which occur as the result of a deliberate act. Furthermore,
there is an important distinction to be made between those actions
which are unlawful and therefore criminal, and those which may
cause damage and destruction to both species and habitat, but
which are not, under current legislation, unlawful. These distinctions
do not, however, provide a clear and coherent definition of what
constitutes wildlife crime.
5. Most of us remain ignorant, and sometimes deliberately
negligent of, the impact that our business or pleasure activities,
have on our flora and fauna. If asked what wildlife crime was,
some would probably point to those activities more commonly in
the news, perhaps badger baiting or the stealing of birds eggs,
whilst others might refer to the illegal trade in exotic or rare
species. Few, however, would ever describe their own actions,
the accidental destruction of a rare and protected plant during
their last trip to the countryside to take in the beauty of their
local SSSI, or the impact on a particular species or habitat when
they disposed of the waste from their garden pond as a wildlife
crime.
6. This tension is also reflected in some of the
memoranda provided to the Sub-committee. For example, we received
written evidence from a number of organisations and individuals
concerned about the impact of wildlife crime on the UK's badger
population. We also received evidence from The National Gamekeepers'
Organisation who expressed the view that many in the countryside
believed that badgers had been over-protected as a species and
are, in fact, having negative impacts on the land such as "TB,
land erosion and crop damage".[3]
Similarly, bat protection groups highlighted the plight of bat
colonies disturbed and possibly destroyed by developers, whilst
the developers might well argue that the clearing of a site prior
to building is a necessary activity with serious financial implications
if delayed. 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.
7. The need to educate the general public on what
constitutes a wildlife crime, and how that might be done, will
be discussed later in this report. It is not simply a lack of
understanding on the part of the public which is the problem here.
The absence of an agreed formal, informal, legislative or other
legal definition of the term "wildlife crime", affects
the work of those charged with protecting our wildlife, principally
the Police, H.M Customs, the Environment Agency, local authorities,
English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and RSPB. Whilst
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides the Police and
the other enforcement agencies with definitions for wild animals,
wild birds and wild plants, and also establishes what is deemed
to be an offence against these species, it is clear that there
is general confusion around many of the terms used in current
legislation which allows for obfuscation and avoidance of responsibility.
8. There is also disagreement as to whether "wildlife
crime" should be classified as an offence, a crime or a serious
crime. In their written memorandum, the Association of Chief
Police Officers (ACPO), said that the Police Service has no definition
for the term wildlife crime but rather looks to offences falling
within specific pieces of legislation as being wildlife crime.[4]
In oral evidence, Martin Brasher of DEFRA said that it
would be better if there were an agreed definition of wildlife
crime and referred the Sub-committee to the work programme set
for the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime ( PAW) for
the next three years. The need for a definition has been made
a priority for this group and we commend them for recognising
and taking forward this admittedly difficult work. We are, however,
concerned at the timeframe.[5]
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.
9. The classification of wildlife crime is also significant.
The way in which crime is classified by the Home Office dictates
the priority and resources attached to the crime by the various
police forces across England and Wales. The Police will initially
investigate an offence according to whether it is a "non-arrestable",
"arrestable", or a "serious arrestable" offence.
Most wildlife crimes will be classified as "non-arrestable"
offences because they do not attract penalties of five years or
more in prison, including those penalties fixed at law and are
not specifically listed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
(PACE) 1984. Furthermore, as many wildlife crimes are classified
as "mere offences" rather than crimes they are not deemed
recordable by the Home Office. In written evidence we were told
by Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom that police forces did have
resources that could be diverted to this work but, on the whole,
they were not giving priority to tackling wildlife crime because
it had not been established as a priority by the Home Office and
wider Government.[6] The
Government must re-state its commitment to tackling wildlife crime.
In evidence before us Police Sergeant Peter Charleston said
that an informal approach had been made to the Home Office with
regard to a possible review of the current classifications for
recording wildlife crime, but that the response had been to suggest
that a change to the present system would only serve to add to
the bureaucracy placed upon police forces.[7]
10. 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. A joint report, The International
Wildlife Trade and Organised Crime, published in 2002 by WWF
and TRAFFIC International estimated that 50% of those prosecuted
for wildlife crimes over a 12 month period also had previous convictions
for serious offences, including drugs and firearms. Illegal trade
in wildlife is also big business and the financial gains to be
made by such trade must not be underestimated. Much of this trade,
which equated to an import value of almost US$15 billion in the
1990s according to TRAFFIC International, is legal but TRAFFIC
also point out that the "high rewards and the low risks of
detection and punishment have made the illegal trade in wildlife
attractive to criminals"[8].
We were given graphic evidence of this during an oral evidence
session when WWF-UK produced a shatoosh shawl which had been seized
in London[9]. The shawl
was priced at £2,700 and was one of 135 which had been confiscated.
The total street value of the consignment was placed at £350,000
and yet the fine imposed was just £1,500. It is not difficult
to see why this is such an attractive and lucrative business for
those willing to break the law.
11. The Countryside Council for Wales also demonstrates
this link between wildlife crime and other crimes in the South
Wales area, providing a list of instances where someone either
suspected or convicted of wildlife offences was found to be involved
in drug and firearm offences. In one particular case a known
badger digger was linked by intelligence to burglaries in the
same area.[10] In fact,
this link was made in a number of the memoranda put before the
Sub-committee, perhaps most notably by the Environment Agency
who reported that,
"The agency is acting with offenders well-known
to police forces and who, over time are active in different criminal
activities—for instance, an individual known for fish movement
offences and illegal waste disposal; or salmon poachers known
to the police for car thefts and drug dealing. It is apparent
that increased pressures on certain areas of crime can lead to
a diversion of attention to other illegal activities perceived
as lower risk, including wildlife crime and other forms of environmental
crime."[11]
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.
3 Ev152 Back
4
Ev38 Back
5
Q235 Back
6
Ev40 Back
7
Q110 Back
8
Ev117 Back
9
Q343-344 Back
10
Ev62 Back
11
Ev22, 2.5 Back
|
