1 Introduction
1. The previous Environmental Audit Committee
Report on wildlife crime, Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime,
was published in October 2004. In the past eight years, new
threats have emerged, the legal landscape has shifted not least
due to devolution and, hearteningly, some of our predecessor Committee's
recommendations have been implemented with positive outcomes.
2004 inquiry
2. In 2004, our predecessor Committee identified
the need for the then Government to "re-state its commitment
to tackling wildlife crime"[1]
and criticised its "refusal to accept wildlife crime as an
issue deserving of committed police resources".[2]
The Government response to the 2004 Report acknowledged the merit
of those recommendations, which was followed by action: UK wildlife
crime priorities were agreed for the first time in 2004 to provide
a targeted approach to tackling wildlife crime;[3]
and Defra and the Home Office set up and funded the NWCU in 2006
as a centre of expertise and co-ordinating point for intelligence.[4]
That recognition by Government of the significance of wildlife
crime was the major achievement of the 2004 Report. In 2012, the
Defra Minister Richard Benyon MP told us, "All areas of wildlife
crime are absolutely at the core of our priorities", which
indicates that that general commitment has been maintained.[5]
3. Another key recommendation in the 2004 Report
was not implemented. Our predecessor Committee recommended 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".[6]
The then Government accepted that "the absence of comprehensive
information about wildlife crime can make it difficult to assess
the scale and nature of this crime, which can in turn make decisions
about the resources to be devoted to it difficult", while
simultaneously rejecting the proposition that "the creation
of a new, separate database is the way forward".[7]
In 2004, our predecessor Committee also pointed out the threat
posed by "the advent of illegal internet trade".[8]
In response, the then Government accepted that "the internet
is becoming one of the major areas for wildlife trade" and
cited the "level of ignorance of the relevant controls and
documentation" as the explanation for many offences.[9]
2012 inquiry
4. Our latest inquiry opened in January 2012
with a call for evidence. In response, we received written evidence
from some of the largest membership organisations in the UK, various
bodies involved in enforcement and licensing, organisations with
an international focus, charities centred on particular species,
members of the public[10]
and, because wildlife crime is a cross-cutting issue, the Home
Office and Defra. In total, we received 57 separate written submissions.
We took oral evidence from wildlife non-governmental organisations,
the police and Natural England, the Environment Agency and UK
Border Force covering the themes raised in written evidence. The
inquiry concluded with evidence from the Defra and Home Office
Ministers who share responsibility for wildlife crime policy,
namely Lord Henley, Minister of State for Crime Prevention and
Anti-Social Behaviour Reduction at the time of our inquiry, and
Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Natural
Environment and Fisheries).
5. The background to this inquiry was formed
by two events. First, the Law Commission's ongoing 11th programme
of work includes a consultation on the reform of the legal regime
for wildlife management. The consultation closes on 30 November
2012, and it is anticipated that recommendations and a draft Bill
will be published in mid-2014.[11]
Secondly, the next Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) Conference of the Parties will take place in March
2013. The CITES Conference is the key forum for international
action against the illegal international wildlife trade, and its
2013 meeting provides the international arena for action to protect
iconic species such as the elephant, rhino and tiger, which are
reportedly close to extinction because of the illegal trade in
elephant ivory, rhino horn and tiger products.
6. Given that background and the outstanding
issues from our predecessor Committee's 2004 Report, we examined
international wildlife crime (Part 2) and wildlife crime in the
UK (Part 3), as well as the nature and enforcement of the law
in relation to wildlife crime in the UK (Part 4). From the evidence,
it is clear that wildlife crime is a broad subject with national
and international facets. So many different species were highlighted
that it is impossible to discuss them all individually either
in our oral evidence sessions or in this Report, but our examination
of the strategic issues, such as the structure of wildlife crime
enforcement and the development of wildlife law, relates to all
wildlife, and we hope that those who might be concerned about
the lack of references to certain species will bear that point
in mind.
7. Since the 2004 Report, conservation law has
been amended in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by their
respective Governments. (Environmental law is an entirely devolved
matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Welsh Assembly
Government has the power to make secondary legislation in this
field.) There are now important differences across the UK in some
laws relating to wildlife, while other arrangements remain unchanged:
Defra recently introduced a commitment to end human-induced species
extinctions in England that does not apply to Wales, Northern
Ireland or Scotland; some aspects of wildlife crime, such as invasive
non-native species, are dealt with at a British level (the island
of Ireland has a separate strategy on invasive species); and the
implementation of CITES, which involves international co-operation,
is handled by the UK Government. Furthermore, successive Scottish
Governments introduced the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act
2004 and the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011,
which provided us with useful practical evidence on the possible
development of the law in England and Wales. The scope of our
recommendations in this Report is defined by the extent of the
UK Government's responsibilities.
1 Environmental Audit Committee, Twelfth Report of
Session 2003-04, Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime, HC
605, recommendation 3. Back
2
Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Crime: Wildlife
Crime, recommendation 4. Back
3
Ev 92 Back
4
Ev 128 Back
5
Q 54 Back
6
Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Crime: Wildlife
Crime, recommendation 6. Back
7
Environmental Audit Committee, Government Response to Twelfth
Report of Session 2003-04, Environmental Crime: Wildlife
Crime, HC 438, para 11. Back
8
Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental Crime: Wildlife
Crime, recommendation 8. Back
9
HC (2003-04) 438, paras 12 and 15. Back
10
The Committee is especially grateful to Sally Hall, Trevor Taylor,
Phillip Onions, Barry Kaufmann-Wright, Judith Smith and Harry
Bishop for taking the time to submit evidence. Back
11
Law Commission, Wildlife Law, Consultation Paper 206. Back
|
