FAQS

In response to the global biodiversity and climate change crises and the need to prevent future wildlife-related pandemics, the Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime (“the Initiative”) is progressing two interrelated, but not interdependent, objectives, namely to:

1. Create a new global agreement on wildlife crime. How? Through the adoption of a fourth Protocol on wildlife crime under the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC); and

2. Amend existing international wildlife trade laws to include public health and animal health into decision making. How? Through amending the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to include public health and animal health criteria in its decision-making processes (a ‘One Health’ approach).

The Initiative views these two objectives as critical components of the calls for transformative changes, and a shift away from “business as usual”, coming from the IPBES Global Assessment Report (2019), the IPBES Pandemics Report (2020), the CBD Secretariat Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 Report (2020) and the WWF Living Planet Report (2020). These FAQs apply to the Initiative’s first objective.

The draft Protocol would represent a major step forward in the fight against serious wildlife crimes by embedding them into the international criminal law framework. It would signify an unequivocal recognition by States Parties of the devastating scale, nature and consequences of such crimes, of the need to scale up collaborative efforts to prevent and combat them, and provide States with the means to do so. If adopted, it would give us, and future generations, the best chance of ending wildlife crimes and thereby help prevent future wildlife-related pandemics, and the devastating societal, environmental, and economic impacts associated with them.

Yes, with the help of technical and legal support from its Steering Group, pro-bono support from the international law firm Arnold & Porter, and input from a network of independent reviewers, the Initiative has released a dedicated briefing paper entitled “Form and content of a possible Protocol on the illicit trafficking of wildlife.” The paper is available online here (and is being translated into multiple additional languages). The accompanying press releases, accessible on the same link, provide the broader context and rationale.

Yes, creating new international agreements takes considerable time and effort – as we have seen with negotiations on agreements on biodiversity, climate change, and ozone depletion, as well as on transnational crime and corruption – but is that the right question? The question should be whether these reforms are needed to help avoid future wildlife-related pandemics and to bring an end to serious wildlife crimes. If the answer to this question is yes, then it is worth the effort.

The time and effort taken to negotiate and adopt a Protocol to end wildlife crime and prevent future wildlife-related pandemics pales in comparison to the catastrophic impacts of these crimes (see FAQ no.3). Further, history has shown that where there is political will, international negotiations can move expeditiously. In a post-COVID-19 world there is a clear political imperative to prevent future pandemics, a growing body of scientific reports on the links between wildlife trade (legal, unregulated and illegal) and zoonotic diseases, and a recognition of the need to shift away from business as usual.

Our current system is not going to prevent the next pandemic. It could, in fact, be raising our potential exposure to zoonotic diseases. These reforms are needed to help avoid future wildlife-related pandemics. It is worth the effort to ensure we are best placed to prevent future pandemics and thereby avoid the devastating societal, environmental, and economic impacts associated with them.

A compelling economic case for investing in preventing future pandemics, including through addressing wildlife trade issues, has been published in Science, in an article titled ‘Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention’. It explains the multiple benefits of such investments and shows that the costs of these interventions pale in comparison to the economic impacts of a pandemic.

Further, in 2019, The World Bank assessed the value of these crimes, as they affect all species of wild animals and plants being trafficked, including fish and timber species. It arrived at a figure of $1-2 trillion a year, when factoring in the impact on ecosystems, including their ability to sequester carbon, loss of government revenues and the value of the contraband itself. As such, these crimes are severely impacting countries ability to deliver on the Paris Agreement, current (and future) global biodiversity targets, and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Given the enormous consequences for people, our planet, and our health, now is the time to move forward with bold and necessary reforms. We must leave the next generation with a system that is fit for purpose in a post COVID-19 world, one that helps ensure a healthy and prosperous planet, gives us the best chance of avoiding future pandemics, and can put an end to these crimes and the severe impacts they are having on biodiversity, climate change and sustainable development.

The Initiative does not regard this as being an “either/or” issue: it should be both. The Initiative welcomes the recent focus on ‘environmental crimes’ through the Resolution on ‘Preventing and combating crimes that affect the environment falling within the scope of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime’adopted at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to UNTOC (CoP10) and also recognises the importance of scaling up efforts to tackle all crimes that have an impact on the environment.

There are a wide-range of potential ‘environmental crimes’ – as diverse as trafficking in hazardous waste to minerals to fish and timber. However, there is not yet any agreement on a definition on the scope of such crimes, whilst the work on advancing this concept is still underway. Efforts to address wildlife crime specifically and ‘environmental crime’ more broadly, can be – and should be – progressed in parallel. They may take slightly different paths, but they are complimentary, mutually reinforcing, and neither prevents the other from being advanced.

The Initiative defines wildlife to include all wild animals and plants, including fish and timber species, and the draft Protocol it has prepared covers forestry and fisheries crime. Whether such an approach is included in a Protocol negotiated and adopted by States, is a matter for States to determine. Wildlife crimes are well-understood, and these crimes are possibly the most damaging of all ‘environmental crimes’.

Illicit wildlife trafficking has been addressed directly in fourthree UN General Assembly resolutions (first in 2015, with follow-up Resolutions in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and 2021), amongst others. In 2019, the UNGA encouraged “Member States to adopt effective measures to prevent and counter the serious problem of crimes that have an impact on the environment, conservation and biodiversity, such as illicit trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products, including fauna and flora as protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and poaching”.

Today there is an unprecedented level of awareness amongst politicians, the private sector and civil society, of the links between wildlife trade, markets and consumption and pandemics, including those that can emerge from illicit trafficking in wild animals (along with multiple other consequences, see FAQ no.3).

The time is right to move ahead with a new international agreement to combat these serious crimes. A Protocol on wildlife crime, possibly including fisheries and forestry crimes, would be an historic moment: the first time ‘environmental crimes’ of this nature are specifically embedded into international criminal law. It would signify recognition by States of the need to scale up collaborative efforts to prevent and combat wildlife crime, provide a powerful vehicle for doing so, and leave a strong legacy for generations to come.

No single initiative will fully address the complex and multidimensional risks to public and animal health posed by wildlife (or captively-bred or domesticated animals). Preventing future pandemics will require a range of complementary initiatives.

Left as it is our system is not going to prevent the next wildlife-related pandemic. It could, in fact, be raising our potential exposure to zoonotic diseases. The Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime is focused on addressing the risks to public and animal health posed by wildlife trade, be it legal, illegal, or unregulated, as well as through wildlife crimes more generally. It will serve to complement and mutually reinforce other measures taken to prevent future wildlife-related pandemics.

UNTOC is the primary international instrument in the fight against transnational organized crime. There are 190 States Parties to the Convention, and it benefits from having the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as its guardian. The UNODC is also the guardian of the UN Convention Against Corruption, and amongst other matters it convenes the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and the Crime Congress. It is the natural home for convening the global community to take action to prevent and combat transnational crime.

The UNGA has in 2019 called upon Member States “to make illicit trafficking in protected species of wild fauna and flora and other crimes that affect the environment, such as trafficking in timber… a serious crime” in accordance with the UNTOC. However, wildlife crime has not yet been brought within the formal legal framework of the Convention as it has for a number of other serious transnational organised crimes, namely on trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants, and illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms.

The proposed draft Protocol includes proposals that would automatically trigger all the tools available under the UNTOC. The draft, however, goes much further. It proposes that a Protocol would:

• agree on the conduct that is to be criminalised, namely Parties to the Protocol would be agreeing to adopt legislation establishing as a criminal offence the illicit trafficking of any whole or part of a wild animal or plant, whether alive or dead, in violation of any relevant international agreement or domestic or foreign law;
• apply to any species of wild fauna or flora, including fish and timber, that is protected under international or, importantly, any national law, and address the harvesting, taking, possessing, import or export, or introduction from the sea of illicitly traded wildlife;
• amongst many other matters, make it a criminal offence to import any wildlife, or wildlife product into a country if it had been acquired in contravention of the national laws of the source country – representing a remarkable expression of comity between nations, and a mutual respect for one another’s laws;
• agree on commitments to prevent illicit wildlife trafficking, such as raising public awareness of these crimes and on demand reduction, to sharing information, such as on known groups active in illicit trafficking, on their concealment methods, known transport routes, and on sharing forensics; and
• address the role and responsibilities of the carriers of contraband, on the verification of documents, and on training and technical assistance.

If adopted, a Protocol with provisions such as these would represent a major step forward in the fight against these serious crimes. It would embed them into the international criminal law framework, where they belong. It would signify an unequivocal recognition by States Parties of the devastating scale, nature and consequences of such crimes, of the need to scale up collaborative efforts to both prevent and combat them, and provide States with the means to do so.

Implementation of international agreements is a challenge right across the board, from conventions addressing biodiversity, to climate change, to corruption, and to transnational crimes. However, issues requiring a cooperative, cross-border response, can most effectively be advanced through an agreed international framework. It is not a question of “either/or,” it is both. We need to close the gaps in the international legal framework, while enhancing national enforcement capacity, which will be given greater political attention and impetus through adopting a new international agreement containing specific commitments to prevent and combat wildlife crimes.

The Initiative advocates for the immediate scaling-up of cooperative, global enforcement efforts to tackle existing illegal activity, including through the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), while taking steps to make necessary changes to the international legal framework.

International agreements act as a catalyst for national plans, legislation, and action. When CITES was established in the early 1970s, relevant national legislation was almost non-existent. The Convention provided the scaffolding for a global shift in national laws and practices. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity has led to each Party adopting National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, and the Paris Agreement of 2015, has seen Parties submitting details of Nationally Determined Contributions. An agreement on wildlife crime would create similar positive cascade effect at the national level and enhance cross-border cooperation.

Finally, negotiations being advanced by diplomats in New York and Vienna would not take resources away from national enforcement efforts. It is not one or the other. For the reasons outlined above, a successful conclusion to negotiations would lead to additional resources being deployed to national enforcement efforts to meet new agreed international commitments.

Yes, informal discussions took place in 2014 but they predated the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a series of global reports outlining the true scale, nature and consequences of these crimes. Solutions previously considered sufficient have now been shown to be inadequate. The right solutions are needed for the right time.

The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 has reminded us of the catastrophic consequences of diseases spilling over from wild animals to people, including those found in illegal trade. Before now, the fragility of our natural systems and the true scale, impact and consequences of illicit trafficking in wildlife had not been elucidated so starkly, as they now have been through the release of a series of landmark publications, including the UNODC ‘UN World Wildlife Crime’ reports of 2016 and 2020, the World Bank’s ‘Illegal Logging, Fishing, and Wildlife Trade: The Costs and How To Combat It’ report of 2019,  the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) ‘Global Assessment Report’ of 2019, the WWF ‘Living Planet Report’ 2020, the IPBES ‘Pandemics Report’ and the CBD Secretariat’s ‘Global Biodiversity Outlook’ report of 2020.

We need measures that are fit for purpose in a post-COVID world; measures that adequately reflect the known scale, nature, and consequences of these serious crimes.

A Protocol will be negotiated by Member States (countries). The UNTOC provides in Article 37 that it can be supplemented by one or more Protocols, but it does not specify how such Protocols are to be developed and eventually adopted. The UNTOC currently has three Protocols, addressing trafficking in persons, migrant smuggling, and illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. These Protocols were negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) and, after the text was complete, were adopted and opened for signature by the UN General Assembly (UNGA).  It is expected that a similar process would apply to any further Protocols.

At this stage, States can express their support for a fourth Protocol by submitting their views to the UN Office and Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by the 32nd session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), set to happen in Vienna in May 2023.

If enough Member States are in favour of a new Protocol, the next step in the process would be to seek a negotiating mandate from the UNGA, which would likely be asked to set up an open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc committee for the purpose of developing the full text of a Protocol. If negotiations are successful after the UN sets up the negotiations and a new wildlife crime Protocol is developed, the UNGA would review and adopt the text and then open it for signature.

Article 14 of the proposed draft Protocol contemplates that after the text is approved, it will be open to all States for signature at UN Headquarters in New York from the thirtieth day after its adoption by the UNGA up until a time to be negotiated. Like the other UNTOC Protocols, it would be subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval (each of which are methods by which nations join treaties), and instruments of ratification, acceptance, or approval will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the UN.

Article 15 of the proposed draft Protocol contemplates that it shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the fortieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. This is the same formulation used for the three existing Protocols.

The proposed Protocol is unrelated to the proposal to make ecocide an international crime. The latter seeks to establish a new fifth crime under the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established by the Rome Statute. An expert panel of international lawyers convened by the Netherlands-based Stop Ecocide Foundation recently released a proposed definition of the crime of ecocide.

This ICC/Rome Statute proposal is a separate and distinct initiative from the proposed Protocol. The proposed Protocol is put forward as an international agreement that will set out agreed obligations to both prevent and combat illicit wildlife trafficking, which would then find expression in national laws and be enforced by national courts alone. The ICC would have no jurisdiction in relation to the proposed Protocol.

FAQ #4 answers the question ‘Would it be better to widen the scope of the proposed Protocol to cover all environmental crimes?’ Since posting that FAQ, at the 30^th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, a Resolution submitted by France on ‘Preventing and combating crimes that affect the environment’ was adopted.

International law is made by States. If a new Protocol is negotiated by States it will be open to any country that is a Party to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) to become a Party to it. By becoming a Party, a country will have the legal obligation to put into place domestic measures and legislation compatible with the Protocol. The Protocol would not be ‘self-executing’, meaning that each country will need to adopt and enforce its own legislation to implement the Protocol.

This is the same for most Conventions, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES has 183 Parties and each country that is a Party to the Convention adopts its own national legislation to meet its obligations under the Convention. The CITES Secretariat manages the National Legislation Project, which monitors progress made by each Party in adopting legislation that meets the requirements of the Convention.

There have been a series of non-binding UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions dating back to 2015 on tackling illicit wildlife trafficking, the outcomes of various conferences, as well as a number of regional strategies (as set out in earlier briefings and FAQ). While not legally binding, all of these Resolutions, events and strategies have helped to raise awareness of the scale, nature and consequences of these crimes, and advance national, regional and global efforts to tackle wildlife crime.

The creation of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) is a case in point. It was established in 2010 with no resources. Within 10 years, it had been recognised in several UNGA Resolutions and secured USD20M in funding to support countries’ efforts to combat wildlife crime.

Most of these Resolutions, events and strategies have, however, tended to be limited to species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). As noted in the UN World Wildlife Crime Report 2020, wildlife crimes also affect ‘millions of species that are not listed by CITES but may be illegally harvested and traded internationally, as is frequently the case in timber and fish trafficking’.

While these various initiatives each have some value, there is no institutionalised means of following up on ad hoc non-binding Resolutions, pledges or processes, all of which are viewed by States as not being legally binding obligations. A new Protocol is significantly different to an UNGA Resolution, or the outcomes of a conference, or a strategy. If it enters into force, it would include legally binding treaty obligations, which will be enduring and reviewed through an ongoing, formal review mechanism amongst States on the implementation of the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and its Protocols.

Amongst these and many other initiatives, we have made progress, but it’s not enough. Given what we know today about the scale, nature and severe consequences of these serious crimes, now is the time to take our next leap forward in working together to end them.

Enforcing wildlife laws, as with other laws, is a national responsibility. Being fully effective requires a well-functioning judicial system, as is recognised in the Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Serious wildlife crimes are transnational in nature and an effective law enforcement response also requires close international cooperation.

Questions raised about the benefits of a fourth Protocol could apply equally to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and its three existing Protocols, as well as the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), and international laws more generally, including those on biodiversity and climate change.

The EWC initiative acknowledges the shortcomings of international law, but we firmly believe in the importance of multilateralism, and of the benefits of collective efforts to maximise cooperation amongst States in dealing with cross border issues, be it human trafficking, migrant smuggling, or wildlife trafficking, as well as biodiversity loss and climate change. International agreements can act as a catalyst for national plans, legislation, and action. There are certain tensions between States at the present time, and it’s important that they continue to work together to strengthen international cooperation on issues of common interest.

The EWC Initiative is quite deliberately narrowly focused on international law reform, but it also fully embraces the need to strengthen national enforcement capacity, as was noted in FAQ #7. The Initiative is of the view that an agreement on wildlife crime would create a positive cascade effect at the national level and enhance cross-border cooperation, as we have seen with other international agreements, without taking existing resources away from national enforcement efforts.

It could also be the first global legally binding instrument with an agreed definition on illicit trafficking in wildlife. As with the Protocol against human trafficking, an agreed definition could facilitate convergence in national approaches with regard to the establishment of domestic criminal offences that would support efficient international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting trafficking in wildlife cases. Additionally, the effort in itself raises the global profile of wildlife crime, drawing attention to the multifaceted challenges and possible solutions.

The Initiative advocates for proceeding on both fronts, national and international, which will be mutually reinforcing. It does not see it as an either/or question, as was expressed in FAQ #7,  and the Initiative’s outreach is raising awareness of the need for stronger action to tackle wildlife crime at all levels, not just the global level.

The draft Protocol does not target any particular region or regions, it is global in its scope. It does, however, place an emphasis on the role of destination States, and the draft Protocol includes a proposed obligation to make it a criminal offence to import any wildlife, or wildlife product into a country if it has been acquired in contravention of the national laws of the source country. This would represent a remarkable expression of comity between nations, a mutual respect for one another’s laws.

It also includes proposed obligations to prevent illicit wildlife trafficking, such as raising public awareness of these crimes and on demand reduction, to sharing information, such as on known groups active in illicit trafficking, on their concealment methods, known transport routes, and on sharing forensics. And it addresses the role and responsibilities of the carriers of contraband, on the verification of documents, and on training and technical assistance. All of which are global in scope.

In May 2021, the President of Gabon, H.E. Ali Bongo Ondimba and the President of Costa Rica, H.E. Carlos Alvarado Quesada, Presidents of two biodiverse rich countries, jointly called for a new global agreement on wildlife crime, taking the form of a Fourth Protocol under the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC). Their reasons for doing so were elaborated upon in two joint opinion pieces, including in the China Daily. Shortly after, the presidents of Angola (September 2021) and Malawi (February 2022) joined their call. The Initiative is orientating its work on the wildlife crime pillar of its two objectives, towards lending its full support to the call made by the four Presidents.

Support for a Fourth Protocol has also been expressed by the European Commission, in the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025.

A Protocol has also been supported by many speakers from across all regions, at events hosted by the Initiative and others, including by Ambassador Judi Wakhungu, Kenyan Ambassador to France and former Minister for the Environment, Dr Ji-Qiang Zhang, President of China’s Global Environment Institute, Dr. Jorge Caillaux, President of the Peruvian Environmental Law Society, Hon. Lee White, Gabon’s Minister of Water, Forests, the Sea, and Environment, Dr Jane Goodall, and Dr Tanya Wyatt, Professor of Criminology, Northumbria University, amongst many others. The Protocol enjoys wide and diverse array of support.

At the 31st Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), in May 2022, Angola, Kenya and Peru submitted a draft resolution inviting Member States to share their “views on on possible responses, including the potential of an additional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, to address any gaps that may exist in the current international legal framework to prevent and combat illicit trafficking in wildlife”. The resolution was adopted by consensus and ultimately co-sponsored by twelve other Member States, namely Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Honduras, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Paraguay, Philippines and the United States.

The EWC Initiative welcomes all viewpoints on the possible benefits of an international wildlife crime agreement, including on its proposed form and content.

The preparation of the draft Protocol was led pro bono by the law firm Arnold & Porter, which was closely involved in the preparation of the 2018 Guide on Drafting Legislation to Combat Wildlife Crime by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The draft is based upon the three existing Protocols to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC), national legislation from across all regions, and the recommendations in the UNODC Guide. The draft has no formal status. It is a first working draft that the EWC Initiative has put into the public domain to help advance the conversation. To make it accessible to as many people, from as many regions, as is possible, the draft has been translated into seven languages, for anyone who would like to read it, comment upon it, or help make it a better draft.

If States agree to adopt a mandate to negotiate a Protocol (see FAQ #9), they will be free to consider, accept, or reject, or use any parts of the draft Protocol as they see fit.

If anyone has specific comments on the draft Protocol, or would like to directly engage with the Initiative in the review of the draft, please contact us at info@endwildlifecrime.org