Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU and Harms to the World

Full text

3 Illegal Wildlife Trade to the
EU and Harms to the World*
Daan van Uhm
Introduction
On 4 October 2014, protests all over the world called for a stop to the poaching of
elephants and rhinos. ‘We are protesting against the political leaders of the world,
who do not have the guts and political will to make changes in their laws’. Accord-
ing to the activists, every 9–11 hours a rhino is slaughtered for its horn and one
elephant is killed every 15 minutes. An immediate end to the ivory and rhino horn
trade was demanded to avoid extinction within 10 years.
Wildlife trade has always existed, in part because it was commonly believed
that natural resources were inexhaustible (Worster 1988). During the last cen-
tury, however, the negative impact of such trade became more transparent. From
around 1900 onwards, several organizations around the world, including the Sierra
Club in North America, the National Trust in England and the Dutch Society for
the Preservation of Nature, emerged with the mission of conserving species and
nature (Heijden 2004). Not long after, the rst environment protection agreements
were also developed to reduce environmental degradation and control overhunt-
ing and poaching in the rst half of the twentieth century (Roe 2002).
Public awareness of these issues increased dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s
due to the international wave of environmental protest movements. These were
strengthened by authoritative groups (e.g. Club of Rome) that warned about the
impact economic growth would have on the environment. Campaigns against
whaling, the fur trade and animal cruelty were developed and media increasingly
started to focus on non-human victims (Benton 1998). To protect species from
extinction, the trade in endangered species became internationally regulated by
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) in 1975. Species were listed in three appendices based on the degree
of extinction; commercial trade in Appendix I species has been banned and trade
in CITES II and III species requires appropriate permits (European Commission
* The research results are based on my doctoral research ‘Uncovering the Illegal Wildlife Trade:
Inside the World of Poachers, Smugglers and Traders’ at the Utrecht University.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with
extinction, but controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. Appendix III
are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES parties for assistance in control-
ling the trade.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
44 Daan van Uhm
2010).1 In 1992 the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force to
protect the diversity of species and genetic materials.
After the ve mass extinctions on earth that were caused by meteorite impacts,
volcanism and large-scale climate change, several scientists predict that we are
currently at the beginning of a sixth mass extinction (e.g. Leakey and Lewin 1995;
Butchart et al. 2010). According to Barnosky et al. (2011) in this scenario it is
humankind that is causing the mass extinction by for instance killing species,
introducing non-native species, fragmenting habitats, spreading pathogens, co-
opting resources and changing global climate. In the last hundred years, the level
of species extinction has increased by as much as a 1,000 times (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). According to Leakey and Lewin (1995), between
17,000 and 100,000 species vanish from our planet each year. Proportions as high
as 26 per cent of mammals, 17 per cent of birds, 38 per cent of chameleons, 31 per
cent of sharks and rays, and 41 per cent of amphibians are said to be at risk (IUCN
2014). Higgins (2010, 2012) has argued that such ecocide ought to be considered
as a fth International Crime Against Peace.
While habitat loss and degradation is the main threat, illegal trade is the second
most damaging hazard to wildlife species (Zimmerman 2003). The illegal wildlife
trade is a green crime that involves illegal trade, smuggling, abduction, capture
or collection of wildlife or products thereof (Sollund 2013). It is said to be in the
nancial top three illegal enterprises worldwide, along with the global drug trade
and the trade in illegal arms (ECOSOC 2002, 2003; UNODC 2012). According to
several reports, the trade in wildlife has expanded dramatically in recent decades
because of the globalization of the world’s economy with the reduction of borders
and because of improved infrastructures including farther reaching air transporta-
tion (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2005; Haken 2011).
Although the illegal wildlife trade is getting more public attention, and crimi-
nologists have started to focus on environmental issues (e.g. South and Beirne
1998; Beirne and South 2007; Sollund 2008; Herbig and Joubert 2006; White
2008, 2011; Walters 2010), including the illegal trade in wildlife (e.g. Schneider
2008; Sollund 2013; Wyatt 2013), insight into this type of crime has been rela-
tively limited. For example, while the European Union appears to be one of the
foremost demand markets for wildlife (Europol 2011), the global focus has tended
to be on source countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In this chapter, the
nature of the illegal wildlife trade in relation to the EU is approached by analyses
of wildlife conscations in the EU over a 10-year period. The chapter considers
the diversity and transnational characteristics of the trade, by asking what kind of
wildlife is illegally traded, what are the source and destination countries, and who
1 Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in Appendix I specimens is permitted

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 45
are the offenders? The chapter concludes with a green criminological considera-
tion of the global harms to the world caused by overexploitation of wildlife.
Method
To get an overview of the illegal trade to the EU, data on conscations in the EU
were obtained from the European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange
database (EU-TWIX), a database of information on wildlife seizures in the EU.
The data includes more than 20,000 shipments (N=22,204) of animals and animal
products seized in the EU between 2001 and 2010. The illegal shipments origi-
nated from 207 different countries all over the world, with a marked concentration
in Africa (5,219 shipments) and Southeast Asia (3,964 shipments). The cons-
cations were analysed by animal groups, source and destination countries and
offenders. The six groups of animals included for this analysis were mammals,
birds, reptiles, sh, coral and molluscs. These six animal groups were chosen for
the focus of this study because they represent 93 per cent of all incidents.
The reliability of the data is entirely dependent on the accuracy at which EU
member states report these data (Blundell and Mascia 2005). Moreover, the con-
scations reect only a fraction of the illegal trade as a large part of the trade
is unreported or undiscovered, the so-called dark gure of crime (Coleman and
Moynihan 1996). Law enforcement experts estimate that no more than 10 per
cent of all contraband wildlife is seized (Stiles et al. 2013). After analysing the
data by sub-category there will be a practical exploration of how these data can be
addressed and approached from a green criminological harm perspective.
Species
While several studies have been conducted on individual cases of illegal trade in
wildlife (e.g. Wyatt 2009, 2011; Herbig 2010; Lindsey et al. 2012; Pires 2012;
Petrossian and Clarke 2014), it remains unclear as to what kind of major ows
there are in relation to animal species traded illegally. To gain more insight,
Figure 3.1 presents the common animal groups conscated during seizures in
the EU between 2001 and 2010. The wildlife conscations were analysed by
the animal groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, sh, coral and molluscs.2 Although
much attention is given to illegal trade in mammal species (e.g. elephants, rhi-
nos, tigers), it is reptiles that dominate the gures with one-third of the total
wildlife conscations, followed by coral and mammals.3 Not live animals but
2 Seventy per cent of the seizures were related to CITES II species, compared to 27 per cent CITES
I and 3 per cent CITES III species.
3 The 22,204 conscations consist of 33 per cent (7,303) reptile-, 20 per cent (4,385) coral-, 17
per cent (3,814) mammal, 13 per cent (2,809) mollusc-, 9 per cent (1,883) sh- and 7 per cent
(1,490) bird-related seizures. Around 2.5 per cent of the seizures consists of other animal groups
(e.g. Amphibia, Arachnida, Insecta) and were not included.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Figure 3.1 Illegal wildlife groups
Source: Personal analysis of the EU-TWIX database, 2001–10.
animal products make up the majority of seizures (82 per cent), compared to 15
per cent of the seizures involving live animals.4
Mammal Products
As mentioned in the introduction the illegal trade in ivory has reached extremely
high levels, indeed, the seizures with illegal mammal products consist mainly of
ivory of elephants followed by various animal products used for traditional Chinese
4 The 3,405 conscations of live animals consist of 64 per cent reptile-, 26 per cent bird- and 5 per
cent mammal-related seizures. Only 1 per cent of conscations consists of live amphibians, includ-
ing poison dart frogs and salamanders (59 per cent Dendrobatidae and 21 per cent Ambystomati-
dae). It is possible that the reptile trade will increase given the growing number of large-scale reptile
fairs all over Europe.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution NN -
XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
46 Daan van Uhm

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 47
medicine.5 The international illegal trade in ivory seems to have increased since the
CITES Standing Committee approved a sale of African government-owned ivory
stocks to China and Japan in 2008.6 Legal ivory on the market provided opportuni-
ties to launder illegal ivory (Gabriel et al. 2012; Underwood et al. 2013; EIA 2013).7
Medicine, dominated by traditional Chinese medicines (TCM), is the largest cate-
gory across categories in terms of quantity of mammal products, which include big
cat, musk deer, bear, saiga antelope, pangolin and rhinoceros products.8 The impact
of this trade is demonstrated by the extinction of the Javan rhino in Vietnam; the
last one was left to die with its horn sawed off in 2010 (Van Uhm 2014).
Live Birds
In contrast to other species groups, live birds dominate bird-related seizures, consist-
ing mostly of parrots and falcons.9 Already in the early 2000s, the EU became the
main legal importer of birds; between 2000 and 2003 the EU imported 2.8 million
wild CITES birds, representing 93 per cent of imports registered worldwide (FAO
2011). From 2006, wild birds are hardly legally imported, because of a European
import ban and protection measures in response to the growing threat of avian inu-
enza (2005/94/E.G.; Cooney and Jepson 2006; Nijman 2010). It is believed that
crime groups immediately lled the gap with illegally traded birds (Van Uhm 2012b).
Live Reptiles
The largest group of live species consists of seizures of live reptiles, including tor-
toises, followed by chameleons and turtles.10 More than 30,000 live reptiles were
conscated between 2001 and 2010 in the EU, with 3,180 spur-thighed tortoises,
mainly from Morocco, at the top of the list.11 Morocco traditionally supplies the
EU with reptiles. Certain populations of spur-thighed tortoises have suffered over
90 per cent decline in Morocco (van Dijk et al. 2014). Moreover, native European
5 The 3,814 conscations of mammal products consist of 42 per cent Elephantidae, 16 per cent
Felidae, 9 per cent Ursidae, 8 per cent Moschidae and 4 per cent Bovidae.
6 Fifty tons of ivory from Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe were sold to Japan in 1999 and 108
tons of ivory from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe were sold to Japan and China
in 2008.
7 Ivory in Asia is related to status and due to increased economic prosperity more people can afford
this luxury. One example is the so-called Hanko (family stamp carved from ivory), described as a
‘must have item’ for each family. The Hanko is often painted to deceive customs ofcials.
8 The conscations of more than 50,000 medicines include 7,200 big cat products, 4,600 musk deer
products, 3,100 bear products, 1,900 saiga antelope products and 1,000 rhino products.
9 The 877 conscations of live birds consist of 61 per cent Psittacidae and 6 per cent Falconidae.
10 The 2,171 conscations of live reptiles consist of 63 per cent Testudinidae, 9 per cent Chamaeleo-
nidae and 9 per cent Emydidae.
11 Little seems to have changed since Interpol mentioned in the internal report ‘Noah’ (1996) that
Europe is highly involved in the illegal trade in spur-thighed tortoises.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

in families: 80 per cent unknown, 4 per cent Faviidae and 4 per cent Acroporidae.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
48 Daan van Uhm
pond turtles are threatened by the illegal trade because when the commonly con-
scated red-eared sliders are released into the wild they compete for food and
basking spaces (Silva et al. 2009).
Reptile Products
The EU is well known to be world’s largest importer by value of reptile skins
(Engler and Parry-Jones 2007).12 Indeed, a signicant amount of seizures of rep-
tile products were related to leather products from pythons, snakes and croco-
diles.13 According to Liddick (2011) more than 10 million reptiles are killed for
the leather industry each year, which is largely unregulated. Commercial enter-
prises change the number of skins, origin or use illegal wild skins and launder
them through legal farms (Liddick 2011; UN 2012).
Fish
Seizures of sh products were clearly dominated by caviar from sturgeons.14 The
European Union seems to be one of the main destination markets of illegal caviar
with more than 16 tonnes of seized caviar between 2000 and 2010.15 The price for
original wild caviar is fuelled by declines in the total amounts available for smug-
gled caviar from the Caspian Sea to the EU.16 Since the sturgeon population has
substantially decreased, prices for caviar have reached extraordinary heights, with
up to €20,000 per kilo for wild Beluga caviar (Siegel and Van Uhm 2014).
Coral
Rarely mentioned, coral seizures are the second most frequently seized wildlife
group, comprised of mainly stony star or hard corals related seizures.17 Accord-
ing to Jones (2008) the EU is, besides the United States, the major importer of
hard corals and the trade is mainly linked to the collection of coral for aquaria.
The main targets are often the rare, slow-growing and long-lived corals. Each
year, tonnes of coral are conscated in the EU from major export countries such
as Indonesia and the Philippines. As corals play an important role in the marine
ecosystem, the effects of their decimation could be substantial (NOAA 2010).
12 The value has been estimated at over €100 million based on imports of reptile skins in 2005.
13 The 4,883 conscations of reptile products consist of 22 per cent Pythonidae, 14 per cent Elapidae,
9 per cent Boidae and 8 per cent Crocodylidae.
14 The 1,835 conscations of sh pr oducts consist of 85 pe r cent Acipenseridae an d 12 pe r cent
Syngnathidae.
15 According to the EU-TWIX database 16.5 tons of caviar was seized between 2000 and 2010.
16 The Caspian Sea was the source of 90 per cent of the global caviar trade last century.
17 The conscations of corals consist of 90 per cent Scleractinia – most seizures were not specied

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 49
Molluscs
Even less mentioned are true conchs and giant clams, which dominate the cons-
cations of molluscs.18 Despite shing bans and regulations, signicant amounts of
(queen) conchs and giant clams are still shed illegally for tourism and aquaria
(CITES 2003; DeBoer and Barber 2010). While large numbers of incidents
involving one or two molluscs may be associated with tourists, abalones appear
to be currently threatened by illegal commercial crime groups (Tailby and Gant
2002; Goga 2014).
Within the EU a large market exists for extraordinary and rare species (e.g. cav-
iar, exotic animals, coral) and critically endangered species are at the top of the
list, since they generate extremely high prices (Engler and Parry-Jones 2007). An
exclusive pair of parrots can be sold for more than €50,000,19 while the price of a
kilo of rhino horn exceeds the price of a kilo of gold (Van Uhm 2012a). The EU
demand market is inuenced by popular fads (e.g. after the movie Harry Potter an
increased demand for snowy owls) and the development of relatively new markets
(e.g. popularity of alternative Chinese medicine). While traditional well-known
wildlife demand markets were identied in the EU (e.g. ivory, reptile leather prod-
ucts, caviar, live reptiles and birds), the analysis of seizures demonstrates rela-
tively lesser-known ows in corals, shells and incidentally live mammals.20 Due
to the relatively high economic prosperity level of EU citizens, it is plausible that
currently more people can afford these luxury products. The impact is clearly vis-
ible, as a large variety of species in the illegal trade are on the brink of extinction.
Countries of Origin and Destination
Origin
Generally, the source countries of wildlife trade include some of the poorest coun-
tries with the richest sources of biodiversity. The ow of wildlife trade appears to
be from developing to developed countries (Roe 2002). In several studies African
and Southeast Asian countries have been identied as the main source countries of
illegal wildlife (Rosen and Smith 2010; UNODC 2010; World Bank 2008; Law-
son and Vines 2014). This is conrmed in the conscation data of the EU where
illegal shipments originated mainly from Africa and Southeast Asia (Figure 3.2).21
18 The 2,809 conscations of molluscs consist of 63 per cent Strombidae and 37 per cent Tridacnidae.
19 EU-TWIX directory of prices, 2013.
20 Old world monkeys (e.g. macaques and vervet monkeys) were mainly found in the seizures of
live mammals (45 per cent of the seizures were Cercopithecidae). During the 2000s there was a
substantial illegal trade in Barbary macaques from Morocco into the EU. This is conrmed in the
seizures of live mammals between 2001 and 2010; the most conscated endangered mammal in
the EU is the Barbary macaque.
21 A marked concentration in Africa with 5,219 seizures and Southeast Asia with 3,964 seizures has
been identied.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

The main African countries of origin are Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, South Africa
and Nigeria.22 North African countries seem to play an important role in the illegal
wildlife trade to the EU because of their geographical advantages, since the south-
ern coastline of Europe could easily be used to smuggle wildlife over the sea into
the EU. For instance the Strait of Gibraltar is well known as the main port between
Africa and the EU for the illegal drug trade (cocaine, heroin, cannabis and syn-
thetic drug precursors) and migration (UNODC 2006; Europol 2011; Carpenter
2012), as well as the illegal wildlife trade (Higheld and Bayley 1996; Cowdrey
2002). The illegal wildlife from Morocco and Algeria is mainly smuggled through
the Strait of Gibraltar and consists mostly of live animals, such as spur-thighed
tortoises, chameleons and Barbary macaques.23 The illegal trade from Egypt
includes mostly small numbers of coral probably from tourists who, consciously
or not, bring them back home. South Africa and Nigeria are well known countries
of origin of ivory (Lemieux and Clarke 2009; Nowell 2012; UNEP 2013), which
is clearly conrmed by a substantial amount of seized tusks and ivory.24
22 The conscations from Africa consist of 612 seizures from Morocco, 531 seizures from Egypt, 446
seizures from Algeria, 315 seizures from South Africa and 310 seizures from Nigeria.
23 The conscations of live animals from Morocco and Algeria include 2,414 Testudo graeca, 65
Chamaeleo chamaeleon and 37 Macaca sylvanus.
24 The conscations of ivory from South Africa and Nigeria include thousands of tusks and carvings.
Figure 3.2 Export countries of illegal wildlife
Source: Personal analysis of the EU-TWIX database, 2001–10.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution NN -
XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
50 Daan van Uhm

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 51
Southeast Asia is home to a unique variety of animals threatened with extinc-
tion and identied as major hub of wildlife trade. Even Singapore, which is a
highly urbanized country, has a reputation as being an active trader in wildlife
(Sodhi et al. 2004). The top illegal exporters of wildlife from Southeast Asia are
Thailand, China, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.25 The Southeast Asian
countries seem to be more specialized in illegal trade in animal products, such as
medicine, leather products, corals and molluscs. The demand for TCM has spread
worldwide as a result of globalization and the expansion of Chinese diasporas
around the world as seen in the increasing TCM export from China every year
(Engler and Parry-Jones 2007; Xueyan 2007). According to Felbab-Brown (2011)
China ranks as the number one market for illegal wildlife. However, based on
conscations, Thailand and Vietnam also appear to be major exporters of illegal
TCM, the main trade from these countries involving leather products from reptiles
to the EU.26 Skins of snakes, lizards and crocodilians consist of a substantial part of
the trade from Southeast Asia with the EU as major importer (Nijman 2010). For
instance, Indonesia, with biodiversity hotspot Borneo, is one of the main source
countries for wild pythons in the skin trade (Kasterine et al. 2012). According to
Wood et al. (2012) Indonesia is also the main supplier of trade in live corals,27 and
together with the Philippines, these countries are the main exporters of molluscs
(Venkatesan 2010). As conrmed by the conscations, these countries seem to be
specialized in illegal exports of corals and shells to the EU.28
Although most illegal shipments come from African and Southeast Asian
countries, the United States and Russia are noteworthy (Figure 3.2); the top six
countries of illegal exporters consist of the United States, Thailand, China, Rus-
sia, Vietnam and Morocco.29 However, illegal wildlife coming from the United
States and Russia is not regularly mentioned. The conscated illegal trade from
the United States consists mainly of leather products from pythons, alligators and
crocodiles.30 Reptile skins are imported, processed, re-exported for manufacture,
and imported in the EU, passing through different transit countries in order to
launder illegally caught reptiles (Cowdrey 2002; Engler and Parry-Jones 2007).
Russia is famous in the illegal wildlife trade as the source country for caviar: over
25 The conscations from Southeast Asia consist of 1,263 seizures from Thailand, 845 seizures
from China, 688 seizures from Vietnam, 434 seizures from Indonesia and 172 seizures from the
Philippines.
26 The conscations from Thailand and Vietnam consist of 1,051 reptile seizures, including 454
Indian cobra (Naja naja) and 77 reticulated python (Python reticulatus) seizures.
27 In the past decade, Indonesia has provided an average of 70 per cent of trade in live corals.
28 The conscations from Indonesia and the Philippines consist of 301 coral seizures and 140 mollusc
seizures.
29 Top export countries of seized illegal shipments to the EU: United States (1,457 seizures), Thai-
land (1,263 seizures), China (845 seizures), Russia (798 seizures), Vietnam (688 seizures) and
Morocco (612 seizures).
30 The conscations from the United States consist of 805 reptile-related seizures, including 278 sei-
zures with large leather products and 269 seizures with small leather products (429 seizures from
Crocodylia and 233 seizures from Serpentes).
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

lands (2,590), Poland (1,599), France (1,229) and Italy (1,037).
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
52 Daan van Uhm
40 per cent of all EU seizures of caviar (more than 3.5 tons) originate from Russia.
The annual value of exported caviar by top exporter Russia is estimated between
US$40 and 100 million, while the illegal Russian export of caviar is estimated
to be no less than US$250–400 million (Pikitch et al. 2005; Schneider 2012).
Although Turkey is a well-known transit country for Caspian caviar to the EU, no
conscations from Turkey are recorded, probably due to insufcient seizure infor-
mation from Greece and Bulgaria. In addition, it is remarkable that Brazil, home
to the world’s biodiversity hotspot the Amazon, and the Republic of the Congo
with the Congo basin are respectively 22nd and 19th on the list of exporters of
illegal wildlife to the EU.
Destination
The EU is an important destination and transit market of trade in wildlife. While
according to Engler and Parry-Jones (2007) the EU ranks as top importer by
value of wildlife, Europol (2013a) indicates that the EU is simultaneously one
of the most important markets of illegal trade in endangered species. Large
European airports (e.g. Schiphol, Frankfurt, Heathrow) and major harbours (e.g.
Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam) appear to play an important role as main entry
points to enter the EU for the demand market or in transit. For instance, the EU
functions as transit points for illegal wildlife trade, such as ivory and rhino horn,
from Africa to Asia and the Middle and Far East (IFAW 2013; European Com-
mission 2014).
Criminogenic asymmetries with structural discrepancies, mismatches and ine-
qualities in the realms of the economy, law, politics and culture (Passas 1999) may
offer opportunities for illegal wildlife trade in the EU with its different regula-
tion and enforcement cultures. Moreover, the free trade agreement between Euro-
pean countries provides unhindered trade and suitable transhipment locations for
illegal wildlife trade within the Schengen area (Cowdrey 2002).31 While the EU
appears to have an important demand market for illegal wildlife, certain countries
seem to have a more prominent role in the illegal trade, since more than half of all
conscations were seized in Germany and the Netherlands (Figure 3.3).32 While
seizures could also reect efforts of enforcement, both countries are well-known
as main transit countries of illegal wildlife (Zembla 2001).
Germany became since the late 1990s famous as the largest black market centre
for birds of prey. The birds are smuggled from Germany to the Middle East where
there is substantial demand for these birds (Holden 1998). Second, Germany is
well-known as the main importer in the EU of caviar and imported almost 250
tons of wild caviar between 1998 and 2006 (Engler and Knapp 2008). Besides
31 The Schengen area consists of 26 members with 10,000 km land borders, 50,000 km sea borders
and 2,000 ofcial crossing points.
32 Top import countries of seized illegal shipments to the EU: Germany (7,266 seizures), the Nether-

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 53
birds and caviar, the seizures in Germany consist mainly of reptile leather prod-
ucts, corals, shells and live reptiles.33
The role of the Netherlands is also important; since the early 1990s, several
reports, including internal police reports, have mentioned the Netherlands as
a major player in the international illegal wildlife trade (e.g. CRI 1992; RRD
1995; Interpol 1996; Holden 1998; Cowdrey 2002; KLPD 2005; Van Uhm 2009;
Kemner 2010; Liddick 2011). Huge numbers of parrots and falcons are smug-
gled into the Netherlands via the Czech Republic and Germany. These birds are
‘laundered’ by forged identication rings to suggest a captive-bred origin, while
the birds are in reality from the wild (KLPD 2005). According to internal report
‘Noah’ from Interpol (1996), a handful of Dutch persons are identied as key
33 The conscations in Germany include 1,909 seizures with corals, 1,093 seizures with shells, 717
seizures with small leather products, 713 seizures with caviar and 483 seizures with live animals
(mainly reptiles and birds).
Figure 3.3 EU destination countries of illegal wildlife
Source: Personal analysis of the EU-TWIX database, 2001–10.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

and reptiles), 5,502 corals and 3,079 leather products.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
54 Daan van Uhm
actors in the illegal wildlife trade that involves reptiles as well as exotic birds.
These perpetrators not only operate from the Netherlands, but also from countries
such as Indonesia, Madagascar, Nicaragua and Spain. Besides the fact that the
Netherlands has been identied internationally as a hub for the illegal reptile and
bird trade around the world, the illegal TCM within the EU seem to be mainly
imported and distributed by the Netherlands (Holden 1998; LNV 2000; Kemner
2010). A substantial part of the seizures consists indeed of TCM, live birds and
reptiles, and leather reptile products and corals are also present.34
A possible explanation for the role of both countries in the international illegal
wildlife trade could be the geographically central location of Germany and the
Netherlands in Western Europe. Second, the national economic and logistic infra-
structure that include major airports (Schiphol and Frankfurt) and main harbours
(Rotterdam and Hamburg). Third, the strong historical trading position in Europe
and strong ties with former colonies in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America.
Although the EU advocates environmental governance and sustainable use, the
substantial demand market for wildlife appears to be a stimulator of illegal trade,
threatening species and ecosystems (Engler and Parry-Jones 2007).
Offenders
Different types of perpetrators are identied in the illegal wildlife trade, from
individual operating actors to highly organized networks that control some or all
facets of trade. According to Wyatt (2013), some offenders might be considered
to be ‘blameless’ (e.g. poor local people who kill endangered species for food),
while others oversee the whole process and make high prots (e.g. transnational
crime groups). A range of perpetrators could be involved along the illicit chain of
the wildlife trade, from local poachers, smugglers and middlemen to corrupt of-
cials and state or private corporations (Kazmar 2000; Zimmermann 2003; Wyatt
2013; Sollund 2014). According to a study on the enforcement of the EU wildlife
trade regulations (European Commission 2006), there seem to be three main types
of illegal traders:
1 small-scale illegal traders;
2 legal traders involved in illegal trade;
3 criminal organizations.
Based on the conscations of wildlife, incidents vary from one single product
to huge amounts of illegal wildlife in cargo. Although tourists may unknow-
ingly bring illegal souvenirs (e.g. shells, coral) or small-scale illegal traders may
smuggle relatively little wildlife, legal enterprises and crime groups seem to be
34 The conscations in the Netherlands include 2,695 medicines and 1,904 live animals (mainly birds

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 55
involved in the trade of substantial amounts of highly protable wildlife across
the borders of the EU (Trafc 2014).
There were 911 cases of the EU seizures in which the job of the perpetrator was
referred to; these consisted mainly of animal traders, businessmen, liberal profes-
sionals, unemployed, and zoo or wildlife park owners. In general, animal traders
deal illegally in live birds and reptiles, businessmen in the caviar business, and
liberal professionals are trading in ivory carvings and derivatives (see Table 3.1).
Not incidental, legally registered companies operate illegally and commit
environmental crimes. Ruggiero and South (2010) used the term ‘dirty collar
crime’ to demonstrated that in most European countries corporate entrepreneurs
benet from legal structures to mismatch quantities or falsify certication of
waste. In the wildlife trade the interrelation between legality and illegality is not
uncommon, as many investigations presented the involvement of legal enter-
prises in the illegal wildlife trade (e.g. Cook et al. 2002; KLPD 2005; Lyons
and Natusch 2011). The backgrounds of the perpetrators of these ‘green collar
crimes’ seem to conrm this assumption: a large proportion of offenders (>30 per
cent) trade legally in wildlife.35 For example, they include animal traders, zoo or
wildlife park owners, antique dealers, fashion trading companies and breeders.36
Besides these, illegal wildlife is smuggled for legitimate business such as reptile
meat and caviar for restaurants, big cats for circuses and primates and bears for,
ironically, wildlife lm producers. According to Naylor (2004) the illegal wild-
life trade always has been run by the same actors who operate the legal one with
the same infrastructure.
35 In an analysis of perpetrators in the Netherlands (KLPD 2005), half of the studied perpetrators
were professional legal wildlife traders.
36 Conscations from animal traders (14.2 per cent), zoo or wildlife park owners (6.5 per cent),
antique dealers (4.3 per cent) fashion trading companies (2.9 per cent) and breeders (1.4 per cent).
Table 3.1 Job and main trade of perpetrators
Job % Main trade %
Animal trader 14.2 Live reptiles and birds 46.8
Businessman 11.4 Caviar 33.6
Liberal profession 7.2 Ivory carvings and derivatives 31.0
Unemployed 6.9 Live reptiles 32.4
Zoo/wildlife park owner 6.5 Live birds and mammals 73.4
Pensioner/retired 5.9 Live reptiles and reptile products 43.1
Public service administrative
professionals
4.8 Ivory carvings, derivatives and coral 37.5
Student 4.5 Live reptiles 37.8
Armed forces 4.4 Reptile products and coral 72.1
Antique dealer 4.3 Ivory carvings 27.9
Source: Personal analysis of the EU-TWIX database, 2001–10.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

2003).37
Harms to the World
This chapter has presented an overview of species, countries and offenders
involved in the illegal wildlife trade in the EU in order to understand the transna-
tional character, complex diversity and global effects of the market. It has become
clear that the trade in wildlife is a global affair with involvement of a diversity
of source and destination countries, different species and both small-scale traders
and large criminal organizations. To demonstrate the impact of wildlife trade and
the interconnection between species, geographic locations and offenders, this last
section will approach the harms from different green criminological frameworks.
From a critical criminological perspective it is important to explore the inten-
tional and unintentional harms of the illegal and legal wildlife trade. Social and
moral norms change societies together with the continual re-examination of laws
and criminalization. According to Hulsman (1986) crime has no ontological real-
ity; crime is not the object but the product of criminal policy. In the eld of wild-
life trade, many activities are not criminalized but may cause harm. According to
Passas and Goodwin (2004) these kind of delinquencies are ‘lawful but awful’.
37 Several reports indicate that the same routes established for other types of illegal commodities are
used to transfer illegal wildlife.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
56 Daan van Uhm
While the previous examples demonstrate the interrelation between the legal
and illegal trade in wildlife, anecdotal evidence about the illegal wildlife trade
and organized criminal groups has been forwarded as well. In the early 2000s,
several UN reports suggested the heavy involvement of Chinese, Japanese, Italian
and Russian organized crime groups in the illegal wildlife trade. The Wo Shing
Wo group and 14K were linked to smuggling ivory, rhino horn and shark n. The
Neapolitan Maa was said to be behind illegal trading in endangered parrots and
Russian organized crime groups seemed to be involved in the illegal caviar trade
as well as poaching of tigers and bears (ECOSOC 2002, 2003; Wyler and Sheikh
2008). More recent reports indicate the involvement of Chinese organized crime
groups in Hong Kong in traditional Chinese medicine with derivatives of endan-
gered species to several companies across the EU (Europol 2011), an Irish mobile
organized crime group (the Rathkeale Rovers) active in robbing more than 100
rhino horns from European museums and selling the horns to Southeast Asian
dealers (Ayling 2013; Van Uhm 2012b) and crime groups involved in high-level
drugs trafcking in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico who illegally supply endan-
gered species to the EU (Europol 2011). According to Europol (2013b), the role
of organized criminal groups in wildlife trafcking within the EU is increasing
which is reected in a direct threat to the stability of the society. The major organ-
ized criminal groups participate in the wildlife trade because of the high prots,
the low risk with which smugglers can bring wildlife into a country and the ability
to incorporate this type of trade with other types of contraband (Zimmermann

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 57
The basic proposition here is that something or someone has suffered harm (Hal-
sey and White 1998; White 2011; Wyatt 2013). For example, it may not be illegal
to trade in non-protected animals or animals from vulnerable populations with
export documents, yet there may very well be signicant injury to the population.
Actually the majority of wildlife trade is perfectly legal, but is nonetheless seri-
ously harmful (Wyatt 2013). By allowing trade in general based on export quotas
alone, populations may become threatened with extinction. Indeed, Hutton and
Dickson (2000) state that there is a trend for species to move up on the CITES
gradation from less threatened to more seriously threatened.
From an anthropocentric perspective, based on the notion of the superiority of
humankind in relation to all other (non-human) species on earth, trade in wildlife
is justiable for human benet. Yet intentional harms include human victims, such
as rangers or soldiers who are killed during an attack on poachers. For instance, in
early 2012 in Cameroon, hundreds of elephants were slaughtered for their ivory
by heavily armed criminal gangs from Chad and Sudan. Intervention of local
authorities resulted in soldiers from Chad getting killed. Dozens of rangers were
killed during similar types of confrontations (Wyler and Sheikh 2013). Additional
unintentional harms to humans include side effects of (illegal) wildlife trade,
such as outbreaks of life-threatening zoonotic diseases. The outbreak in 2003 of
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus was traced back to the
small carnivore and bat trade (Bell et al. 2004; Lau et al. 2005). Another striking
example is the avian inuenza virus (H5N1) that partly through (illegal) trade in
wildlife has gained ground (Yee et al. 2009). In addition, rainforests are inhabited
by millions of people who are dependent on the natural resources of the rainfor-
est, which partly disappear as result of the wildlife trade (Boekhout van Solinge
2010). Furthermore, with the global disappearance of species a culturally and
emotionally poorer world is left for future generations (Herbig 2010).
From a green criminological perspective, the harm principle can be extended
with species and ecosystems as victims of (human) actions (South 2008; White
2008). Humans can be seen as part of a complex ecosystem and no longer as cen-
tral actors. According to Herbig (2010), the existence of human and non-human
species depends on the biodiversity of the earth. From an ecocentric perspective,
this relationship is based on the ecological principles: ‘everything is related to
everything else’ (Benton 1998). For instance, the disappearance of keystone spe-
cies would have a disastrous impact on perennial species and their ecosystems
(Wilson and Kellert 1993; Mills et al. 1993; Power et al. 1996). For example, as
a result of reduction in sea star populations, mussel populations will explode and
extrude most other species (Paine 1966) and vice versa the reintroduction of grey
wolves in Yellowstone National Park has led to the recovery of the entire ecosys-
tem from vegetation to beavers and bison (Ripple and Beschta 2012). At the same
time, the (re)introduction or release of non-native animals could have serious neg-
ative effects on the stability of an ecosystem. Although several exotic species have
been introduced for the purposes of beneting agri- or aquaculture, side effects of
these introductions include loss of native species and changes in ecosystem func-
tions and services (Mooney and Hobbs 2000). From this perspective, ecosystems
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

of new drugs. One in every four drugs originates from the tropical rainforest and every year new
animals and plants are discovered by science that may have medicinal properties.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
58 Daan van Uhm
may become unbalanced or could even collapse as a result of the wildlife trade
due to the strong symbiosis between species in ecosystems (Lindsey et al. 2012;
Myers et al. 2007).
While humankind seems to understand more than ever before the complex-
ity of social and mental lives of animals and their interdependence with humans
(evolutionary, spiritually and ecologically), animals are still emphasized as instru-
ments instead of non-human species with rights and an inherent and intrinsic
value (Benton 1998; Sollund 2014). According to White (2007), non-human ani-
mals are perceived as inferior to human species in a similar way that sexism and
racism involve prejudice and discrimination against ‘other’ people. From a bio-
centric perspective all species are equal and all species should be treated equally.
From this point of view the quality of their individual lives and well-being is
important (Singer 1975; Regan 1983; Cazaux 2007). Most non-human animals in
the trade are killed for manufacturing or placed outside of their ecosystem (Wyatt
2013). According to Gonzales (2003), up to 75–90 per cent of illegally traded
parrots will die during transit. According to Wyatt (2013) the victimization is
continuous. If the non-human animals survive the transport they are kept in cages
or held in captivity their whole lives. From a biocentric perspective this would be
unacceptable.
Applying the harm principle may vary in different stages of the wildlife trade.
Not only are harms interconnected in several ways, environmental harms are
partly determined by transnational transference (e.g. avian inuenza, SARS,
Ebola) (Heckenberg 2010). Due to the variety of different forms of wildlife trade
(e.g. species, purposes) and geographical dispersion, it has become clear that
wildlife trade involving the EU can result in various intentional and unintentional
harms. The degree and form of these harms appears to be dependent on type of
species, geographic location and offenders.
First of all, trade in endangered species can be extremely harmful for the
remaining population. A shining example of this impact is the illegal trade in
critically endangered tortoises such that together they now make up more than
20 per cent of the total wild population in the EU (Perälä 2003). It is signicant,
therefore, that 1,569 Egyptian tortoises were conscated in the EU between 2001
and 2010, given that the wild population of Egyptian tortoises is estimated to be
7,470 animals. As shown by the trade in caviar the more a species is threatened
with extinction, the higher its value will be on the black market. More severe in
terms of harm is the disappearance of keystone species, which may disturb the
stability of the whole ecosystem and subsequently other species may also disap-
pear. This may in turn have signicant consequences for the local communities in
terms of lack of natural resources, and humanity in general if potential medicines
will be lost.38
38 Biodiversity is a large collection of genetic material supplies that can be used for the development

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 59
Second, harms are dependent on the geographic location. According to Hall
(2013), environmental harm is unequally distributed. Relatively poor countries in
Africa and Southeast Asia own nature-rich areas, which are being overexploited.
In addition, the vulnerability of a species is often related to some areas where
only a few specimens remain in the wild (e.g. the Javan rhino in Vietnam). Trans-
ference of harms may arise during the (illegal) transportation of wildlife from
abroad to the EU. The dispersion of zoonotic viruses is evidently connected to the
wildlife trade. For instance two eagles infected with avian inuenza were hidden
in pipes and illegally imported into Brussels from Thailand (Yee et al. 2009). As
mentioned earlier, wildlife entering the EU and released in the wild can lead to
ecosystem degradation.
Third, harms are dependent on the offenders. The incidental removal of animals
by local communities who are dependent on natural resources differs signicantly
from commercial companies or organized crime groups which structurally weed
out species. An excellent example is the impact of poaching on sturgeon. Besides
the fact that since the early 2000s sturgeons themselves are threatened by well-
equipped professional hunters sent by the caviar maa, it is also the case that
confrontations with human victims are not uncommon. Kidnappings, bombings
of apartments of ofcials, and the use of weapons such as Kalashnikovs increase
potential human harms and threaten state security (Siegel and Van Uhm 2014).
Simultaneously, with the increasing degradation of species, the diversity and
unequal distribution of harms to humans, non-human species and ecosystems has
become more clearly visible. Insofar as the demand markets of wildlife manifest
in the EU, the harm is mainly visible in the relatively poor source countries in
Africa and Southeast Asia. Not only human victims in the wildlife trade, but also
degraded ecosystems, loss of natural resources, the emergence of zoonotic dis-
eases, loss of potential medicines and billions of non-human victims characterize
the harms of the wildlife trade. Green criminologists argue against the anthropo-
centric perspective of harm and are in favour of a more ecocentric and biocentric
perspective, where ecosystems and non-human animals can be seen as victims.
To appreciate the value of non-human animals and the natural environment is
paramount in itself, rather than simply the value that they may have for humans
(Beirne and South 2007; Lynch and Stretesky 2007).
Conclusion
To support future studies in the eld of wildlife trade, this chapter has given an
overview of the nature of the wildlife trade to one of world’s largest demand
markets, the European Union. There is European demand for TCM, exclusive
wild caviar and exotic animals as pets as well as relatively lesser-known collector
markets for corals and shells. The demand market is mainly fuelled by ows from
African and Southeast Asian countries involving small-scale illegal traders, legal
traders who in one or more cases go beyond the limits of the law, and criminal
organizations. The diversity of the illegal wildlife trade is reected in a variety of
harms to the world.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Gateways to Europe. Paper presented at the Policing and European Studies research
conference, 30 March, University of Abertay, Dundee.
Cazaux, G. 2007. ‘Labelling Animals: Non-Speciesist Criminology and Techniques to
Identify Other Animals’, in Issues in Green Criminology, edited by P. Beirne and N.
South. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 87–113.
CITES. 2003. Review of Signicant Trade in Specimens of Appendix-II Species (Resolution
Conf. 12.8 and Decision 12.75).
Coleman, C. and Moynihan, J. 1996. Understanding Crime Data: Haunted by the Dark
Figure. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2005. Illegal Trade in Wildlife: A North
American Perspective. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX
60 Daan van Uhm
Green criminologists argue that the harm principle should be extended to non-
human species and ecosystems as victims of (human) actions. We may well be
on the brink of the sixth mass extinction, but this time one caused by humankind.
The disappearance of species is reected in unbalanced ecosystems and loss of
habitat. While the demand markets of wildlife manifest themselves in Western
countries, the harm is mainly visible in relatively poor source countries in Africa
and Southeast Asia. Nevertheless, wildlife trade is not a dismissible third world
problem but a global one. The demand market is fuelled by ows from differ-
ent geographic locations by a large diversity of perpetrators reected in an over-
whelming variety of unequal distributed harms to the world. While humankind
clearly seems to understand the interconnectedness in nature and the global side
effects of the wildlife trade, it will be a challenge to prevent the rapid extinction
of many species.
References
Ayling, J. 2013. ‘What Sustains Wildlife Crime? Rhino Horn Trading and the Resilience
of Criminal Networks’, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 16(1), 57–80.
Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O., Swartz, B., Quental, T.B. and
Ferrer, E.A. 2011. ‘Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?’, Nature
47(7336), 51–7.
Beirne, P. and South, N. (eds). 2007. Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms
against Environments, Humanity and Other Animals. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Bell, D., Roberton, S. and Hunter, P.R. 2004. ‘Animal Origins of SARS Coronavirus: Pos-
sible Links with the International Trade in Small Carnivores’, Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 359(1447), 1107–14.
Benton, T. 1998. ‘Rights and Justice on a Shared Planet: More Rights or New Relations?’,
Theoretical Criminology 2(2), 149–75.
Blundell, A.G. and Mascia, M.B. 2005. ‘Discrepancies in Reported Levels of International
Wildlife Trade’, Conservation Biology 19(6), 2020–25.
Boekhout van Solinge, T. 2012. ‘Ontbossing en criminologie’, Justitiële verkenningen
38(2), 9–28.
Butchart, S.H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P., Almond, R.E.
and Watson, R. 2010. ‘Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines’, Science
328(5982), 1164–8.
Carpenter, A. 2012. Security and Europe’s Sea Ports: Threats and Issues Facing Maritime

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 61
Cook, D., Roberts, M. and Lowther, J. 2002. The International Wildlife Trade and Organised
Crime: A Review of the Evidence and the Role of the UK. University of Wolverhampton.
Cooney, R. and Jepson, P. 2006. ‘The International Wild Bird Trade: What’s Wrong with
Blanket Bans?’, Oryx 40(1), 18–23.
Cowdrey, D. 2002. Switching Channels: Wildlife Trade Routes into Europe and the UK.
Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton.
CRI. 1992. Milieuhandhaving en natuurbescherming; criminaliteitsbeeld van en om de han-
del in bedreigde plant en diersoorten. The Hague: Centrale Recherche Informatiedienst.
DeBoer, T.S. and Barber, P.H. 2010. ‘Isolation and Characterization of 9 Polymorphic
Microsatellite Markers for the Endangered Boring Giant Clam (Tridacna crocea) and
Cross-Priming Testing in Three Other Tridacnid Species’, Conservation Genetics
Resources 2(1), 353–6.
Dijk, van P.P., Corti, C., Mellado, V.P. and Cheylan, M. 2004. Testudo graeca. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.
Economic and Social Council United Nations (ECOSOC). 2002. Progress Made in the
Implementation of Economic and Social Council Resolution 2001/12 on Illicit Trafck-
ing in Protected Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. Report of the Secretary-General,
9–12.
——— 2003. Illicit Trafcking in Protected Species of Wild Flora and Fauna and Illicit
Access to Genetic Resources. Report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.15/2003/8).
EIA. 2013. Blood Ivory: Exposing the Myth of a Regulated Market. London: EIA.
Engler, M. and Knapp, A. 2008. Brieng on the Evolution of the Caviar Trade and Range
State Implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14). Brussels: Trafc.
Engler, M. and Parry-Jones, R. 2007. Opportunity or Threat: The Role of the European
Union in Global Wildlife Trade. Brussels: Trafc Europe.
European Commission. 2006. Study on the Enforcement of the EU Wildlife Trade Regula-
tions in the EU-25. Brussels: European Commission.
——— 2010. Wildlife Trade Regulations in the European Union: An Introduction to CITES
and its Implementation in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Commission.
——— 2014. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Par-
liament on the EU Approach against Wildlife Trafcking. Brussels, 7 February, COM
(2014) 64 nal.
Europol. 2011. Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA). The Hague: Europol.
——— 2013a. Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA). The Hague:
Europol.
——— 2013b. Threat Assessment 2013: Environmental Crime in the EU. The Hague:
Europol.
FAO. 2011. ‘International Trade in Wild Birds, and Related Bird Movements, in Latin
America and the Caribbean’, Animal Production and Health Paper No. 166. Rome:
FAO.
Felbab-Brown, V. 2011. The Disappearing Act: The Illicit Trade in Wildlife in Asia. Wash-
ington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Gabriel, G., Hua, N. and Wang, J. 2012. Making a Killing: A 2011 Survey of Ivory Markets
in China. Yarmouth Port: IFAW.
Goga, K. 2014. The Illegal Abalone Trade in the Western Cape. Institute for Security Stud-
ies Papers (261).
Gonzales, J.A. 2003. ‘Harvesting, Local Trade, and Conservation of Parrots in the North-
eastern Peruvian Amazon’, Biological Conservation 114, 437–46.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

62 Daan van Uhm
Haken, J. 2011. Transnational Crime in the Developing World. Washington, DC: Global
Financial Integrity.
Hall, M. 2013. Victims of Environmental Harm: Rights, Recognition and Redress under
National and International Law. London: Routledge.
Halsey, M. and White, R. 1998. ‘Crime, Ecophilosophy and Environmental Harm’, Theo-
retical Criminology 2(3), 345–71.
Heckenberg, D. 2010. ‘The Global Transference of Toxic Harms’, in Global Environ-
mental Harm: Criminological Perspectives, edited by R. White. Cullompton: Willan
Publishing.
Heijden, van der, H.A. 2004. ‘De milieubeweging in de twintigste eeuw’, Belgisch Tijd-
schrift voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis 32(3), 4.
Herbig, F.J.W. and Joubert, S.J. 2006. ‘Criminological Semantics: Conservation Criminol-
ogy – Vision or Vagary?’, Acta Criminologica 19, 88–103.
Herbig, J. 2010. ‘The Illegal Reptile Trade as a Form of Conservation Crime: A South
African Criminological Investigation’, in Global Environmental Harm: Criminological
Perspectives edited by R. White. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 110–31.
Higgins, P. 2010. Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction
of Our Planet. London: Shepheard-Walwyn Publishers.
Higgins, P. et al. 2012. Ecocide is the Missing 5th Crime against Peace. Human Rights
Consortium. School of Advanced Study, University of London.
Higheld, A.C. and Bayley, J.R. 1996. ‘The Trade in Tortoise-Derived Souvenir Products
in Morocco’, Trafc Bulletin 16(1), 33–5.
Holden, J. 1998. By Hook or by Crook: A Reference Manual on Illegal Wildlife Trade and
Prosecutions in the United Kingdom. Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
Hulsman, L.H. 1986. ‘Critical Criminology and the Concept of Crime’, Crime, Law and
Social Change 10(1), 63–80.
Hutton, J. and Dickson, B. (eds) 2000. Endangered Species, Threatened Convention: The
Past, Present, and Future of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endan-
gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. London: Earthscan.
IFAW. 2013. Criminal Nature: The Global Security Implications of the Illegal Wildlife
Trade. Brussels: IFAW.
Interpol. 1996. Internal Report: Noah. Lyon: Interpol.
IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2014.3. Gland: IUCN.
Jones, R. 2008. ‘CITES, Corals and Customs: The International Trade in Wild Coral.
Advances in Coral Husbandry in Public Aquariums’, Public Aquarium Husbandry
Series, 351–61.
Kasterine, A., Arbeid, R., Caillabet, O. and Natusch, D. 2012. The Trade in South-East
Asian Python Skins. Geneva: International Trade Centre (ITC).
Kazmar, J. 2000. ‘The International Illegal Plant and Wildlife Trade: Biological Suicide’,
U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy 6(105), 105–29.
Kemner, J. 2010. Illegale handel in exotische diersoorten uitgestorven? Amsterdam:
Bureau Milieu Criminaliteit.
KLPD. 2005. Analyse CITES-criminaliteit. Een analyse van de illegale handel in CITES-
soorten. Zoetermeer: KLPD.
Lau, S.K.P., Woo, P.C.Y., Li, K.S.M., Huang, Y., Tsoi, H., Wong, B.H.L., Wong, S.S.Y.,
Leung, S.Y., Chan, K.H. and Yuen, K.Y. 2005. ‘Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Coranavirus-Like Virus in Chinese Horseshoe Bats’, Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences of the United States 102, 14040–45.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 63
Lawson, K. and Vines, A. 2014. Global Impact of the Illegal Wildlife Trade: The Costs of
Crime, Insecurity and Institutional Erosion. London: Chatham House.
Leakey, R.E. and Lewin, R. 1995. The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of
Humankind. New York: Doubleday.
Lemieux, A.M. and Clarke, R.V. 2009. ‘The International Ban on Ivory Sales and
its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa’, British Journal of Criminology 49(4),
451–71.
Liddick, D.R. 2011. Crimes against Nature: Illegal Industries and the Global Environ-
ment. Oxford: Praeger Publishers.
Lindsey, P., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino, C., Dickman, A., Dig-
gle, R., Eves, H., Henschel, P., Lewis, D., Marnewick, K., Mattheus, J., McNutt, J.W.,
McRobb, R., Midlane, N., Milanzi, J., Morley, R., Murphree, M., Nyoni, P., Opyene, V.,
Phadima, J., Purchase, N., Rentsch, D., Roche, C., Shaw, J., van der Westhuizen, H., Van
Vliet, N. and Zisadza, P. 2012. Illegal Hunting and the Bush-Meat Trade in Savanna
Africa: Drivers, Impacts and Solutions to Address the Problem. New York: Wildlife
Conservation Society report.
LNV. 2000. Voortgangsrapportage CITES. The Hague: LNV.
Lynch, M.J. and Stretesky, P.B. 2007. ‘Green Criminology in the United States’, in Issues
in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms against Environments, Humanity and Other
Animals, edited by P. Beirne and N. South. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 248–69.
Lyons, J.A. and Natusch, J.D. 2011. ‘Wildlife Laundering through Breeding Farms: Illegal
Harvest, Population Declines and a Means of Regulating the Trade of Green Pythons
(Morelia viridis) from Indonesia’, Biological Conservation 144, 3073–81.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Deserti-
cation Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Mills, L.S., Soulé, M.E. and Doak, D.F. 1993. ‘The Keystone-Species Concept in Ecology
and Conservation’, BioScience, 219–24.
Mooney, H.A. and Hobbs, R.J. (eds). 2000. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press.
Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. 2007. ‘Cascad-
ing Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean’, Science 315,
1846–50.
Naylor, R.T. 2004. ‘The Underworld of Ivory’, Crime, Law and Social Change 42, 261–95.
Nijman, V. 2010. ‘An Overview of International Wildlife Trade from Southeast Asia’, Bio-
diversity and Conservation 19(4), 1101–14.
NOAA. 2010. Strategic Plan for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems: Research, Man-
agement, and International Cooperation. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coral Reef Con-
servation Program.
Nowell, K. 2012. Wildlife Crime Scorecard: Assessing Compliance with and Enforcement
of CITES Commitments for Tigers, Rhinos and Elephants. World Wildlife Fund.
Paine, R.T. 1966. ‘Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity’, American Naturalist,
65–75.
Passas, N. 1999. ‘Globalization, Criminogenic Asymmetries and Economic Crime’, Euro-
pean Journal of Law Reform 1(4), 399–423.
Passas, N. and Goodwin, N.R. (eds). 2004. It’s Legal but It Ain’t Right: Harmful Social
Consequences of Legal Industries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Perälä, J. 2003. ‘Testudo kleinmanni’, in IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Spe-
cies. Version 2012.2.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

64 Daan van Uhm
Petrossian, G.A. and Clarke, R.V. 2013. ‘Explaining and Controlling Illegal Commercial
Fishing: An Application of the CRAVED Theft Model’, British Journal of Criminology
54(1), 73–90.
Pikitch, E.K., Doukakis, P., Lauck, L., Chakrabarty, P. and Erickson, D.L. 2005. ‘Status, Trends
and Management of Sturgeon and Paddlesh Fisheries’, Fish and Fisheries 6(3), 233–65.
Pires, S.F. 2012. ‘The Illegal Parrot Trade: A Literature Review’, Global Crime 13(3),
176–90.
Power, M.E., Tilman, D., Estes, J.A., Menge, B.A., Bond, W.J., Mills, L.S., Daily, G. Cas-
tilla, J., Lubchenco, J. and Paine, R.T. 1996. ‘Challenges in the Quest for Keystones’,
BioScience 46(8), 609–20.
Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Oakland: University of California Press.
Regionale Recherche Dienst Rotterdam (RRD). 1995. Eindrapportage Team HID. Project
Wildlife Criminaliteit. Rotterdam: RRD.
Ripple, W.J. and Beschta, R.L. 2012. ‘Trophic Cascades in Yellowstone: The First 15 Years
after Wolf Reintroduction’, Biological Conservation 145(1), 205–13.
Roe, D. 2002. Making a Killing or Making a Living: Wildlife Trade, Trade Controls, and
Rural Livelihoods. Stevenage: IIED/Trafc.
Rosen, G.E. and Smith, K.F. 2010. ‘Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade
in Illegal Wildlife’, EcoHealth 7(1), 24–32.
Ruggiero, V. and South, N. 2010. ‘Green Criminology and Dirty Collar Crime’, Critical
Criminology 18(4), 251–62.
Schneider, J.L. 2008. ‘Reducing the Illicit Trade in Endangered Wildlife: The Market
Reduction Approach’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24(3), 274–95.
——— 2012. Sold into Extinction: The Global Trade in Endangered Species. Santa Bar-
bara: ABC-CLIO.
Siegel, D. and Van Uhm, D.P. 2014. ‘Zwarte kaviaar. Criminele netwerken, illegale handel
en de bedreiging van de steur’, Justitiële verkenningen 30(2), 54–70.
Silva, J.P., Toland, J., Jones, W., Eldridge, J., Hudson, T. and O’Hara, E. 2009. Life and
Europe’s Reptiles and Amphibians: Conservation in Practice. Luxembourg: European
Communities.
Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New
York: Discus.
Sodhi, N.S., Koh, L.P., Brook, B.W. and Ng, P.K. 2004. ‘Southeast Asian Biodiversity: An
Impending Disaster’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(12), 654–60.
Sollund, R.A. 2008. Global Harms: Ecological Crime and Speciesism. Hauppauge: Nova
Science Publishers.
——— 2013. ‘Animal Trafcking and Trade: Abuse and Species Injustice’, in Emerging
Issues in Green Criminology: Exploring Power, Justice and Harm, edited by R. Walters,
D.S. Westerhuis and T. Wyatt. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 72–92.
——— 2014. ‘Crimes Against Animal Life’, in Encyclopedia of Criminology and Crimi-
nal Justice, edited by G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd. New York: Springer, 759–69.
South, N. 2008. ‘Nature, Difference and the Rejection of Harm: Expanding the Agenda for
Green Criminology’, in Global Harm: Ecological Crime and Speciesism, edited by R.A.
Sollund. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, 191–3.
South, N. and Beirne, P. (eds). 1998. ‘For a Green Criminology’. Special issue of Theoreti-
cal Criminology 2(2).
Stiles, D., Redmond, I., Cress, D., Nellemann, C. and Formo, R.K. 2013. Stolen Apes – The
Illicit Trade in Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Bonobos, and Orangutans: A Rapid Response
Assessment. Arendal: United Nations Environment Programme/ GRID-Arendal.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Illegal Wildlife Trade to the EU 65
Tailby, R. and Gant, F. 2002. The Illegal Market in Australian Abalone. Canberra: Austral-
ian Institute of Criminology.
Trafc. 2014. Wildlife Trade in the European Union. Trafc Brieng. Brussels: Trafc.
Underwood, F.M., Burn, R.W. and Milliken, T. 2013. ‘Dissecting the Illegal Ivory Trade:
An Analysis of Ivory Seizures Data’, PloS one 8(10). Available at: http://journals.plos.
org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076539 (accessed 4 April 2015).
UNEP. 2013. Elephants in the Dust–The African Elephant Crisis. A Rapid Response
Assessment. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
United Nations. 2012. Improving International Systems for Trade in Reptile Skins based on
Sustainable Use. Geneva: United Nations.
UNODC. 2006. Organized Crime and Irregular Migration from Africa to Europe. Vienna:
United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime.
——— 2010. The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat
Assessment. Vienna: United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime.
——— 2012. Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit. Vienna: UNODC.
Van Uhm, D.P. 2009. Illegale dierenhandel en de rol van Nederland. Masterthesis Crimi-
nology. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and
Criminology.
——— 2012a. ’De illegale handel in beschermde diersoorten’, Justitiële verkenningen
28(2), 91–100.
——— 2012b. ‘Organised Crime in the Wildlife Trade’, Centre for Information and
Research on Organised Crime Newsletter 10(2), 2–4.
——— 2014. ‘Criminaliteit en traditionele Chinese medicijnen’, Proces 93(2), 130–43.
Venkatesan, V. 2010. ‘Marine Ornamental Molluscs’, National Training Programme on
Marine Ornamental Fish Culture, 27–32.
Walters, R. 2010. Eco Crime and Genetically Modied Food. Abingdon: Routledge.
White, R. 2007. ‘Green Criminology and the Pursuit of Social and Ecological Justice’,
in Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms against Environments, Other Ani-
mals, and Humanity, edited by N. South and P. Beirne. Cullompton: Willan Publishing,
32–54.
——— 2008. Crimes Against Nature: Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice.
Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
——— 2011. Transnational Environmental Crime: Toward an Eco-Global Criminology.
London: Routledge.
Wilson, E.O. and Kellert, S.R. (eds). 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Wood, E.M., Malsch, K. and Miller, J. 2012. ‘International Trade in Hard Corals: Review
of Management, Sustainability and Trends’, in Proceedings of the 12th International
Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, Australia, 9–13.
World Bank. 2008. What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade? Washington, DC: World Bank.
Worster, D. (ed.). 1988. The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental
History. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wyatt, T. 2009. ‘Exploring the Organization of Russia Far East’s Illegal Wildlife Trade:
Two Case Studies of the Illegal Fur and Illegal Falcon Trades’, Global Crime 10(1–2),
144–54.
——— 2011. ‘The Illegal Trade of Raptors in the Russian Federation’, Contemporary
Justice Review 14(2), 103–23.
——— 2013. Wildlife Trafcking: A Deconstruction of the Crime, the Victims, and the
Offenders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX

66 Daan van Uhm
Wyler, L.S. and Sheikh, P.A. 2008. International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and
US Policy. Washington, DC: Library of Congress Washington Congressional Research
Service.
——— 2013. International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and US Policy. Washington,
DC: Library of Congress Washington Congressional Research Service.
Xueyan, L. 2007. ‘Promoting Sustainable Use of Chinese Traditional Medicines’, in The
State of Wildlife Trade in China: Information on the Trade in Wild Animals and Plants
in China. Beijing: Trafc.
Yee, K.S., Carpenter, T.E. and Cardona, C.J. 2009. ‘Epidemiology of H5N1 Avian Inu-
enza’, Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 32(4), 325–40.
Zembla. 2001. De Madagascar-connectie. Documentary. Available at: http://zembla.vara.
nl/seizoenen/2001/aeveringen/24-05-2001 (accessed 4 April 2015).
Zimmerman, M.E. 2003. ‘Black Market for Wildlife: Combating Transnational Organized
Crime in the Illegal Wildlife Trade’, The Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 36,
1657–66.
Review Copy - Not for Distribution
NN - XXXX X - XXXXXXXXXXXXX