ANNEX A
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
Twelfth Report of Session 2003-04: Environmental
Crime: Wildlife Crime
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 DEFRA's 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)
| 
