‘The case for an additional Protocol under the UNTOC on wildlife crime.’

A Discussion on Tackling Illicit Wildlife Trafficking through an Additional Protocol to the UNTOC.

In partnership with Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime and Northumbria University, Vienna, Austria.

John E. Scanlon AO, Chair, Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime

‘The case for an additional Protocol under the UNTOC on wildlife crime’

(See Welcoming Remarks below)

Thank you Tanya and many thanks to Ian for that excellent overview of the history and evolution of the UNTOC. As indicated, I am going to explore the case for an additional Protocol on combating and preventing the illicit trafficking of wildlife. When talking of wildlife, I am including all wild fauna and flora, including all fish and tree species, not just the limited number of species listed under CITES.

Let me start by briefly looking at some of the consequences of these crimes. Reports from IPBES, UNEP, UNODC, the World Bank, and the Global Initiative, amongst others, graphically describe the severe environmental consequences of wildlife crime, for our climate, ecosystems, wild animals and plants, as well as for human and animal health. But the damage goes deeper than that; we know these crimes involve the theft of vital natural resources from local and indigenous communities, they discourage legitimate investors, and undermine the governments of source countries – and they do this by depriving them of revenue, fuelling corruption, destroying livelihoods, injuring and killing rangers, and creating national and regional instability. Tanya will expand upon these issues in her presentation.

Over the past 12 years, I have spent a lot of time helping to galvanise support amongst countries, law enforcement agencies, and many others, to combat and prevent wildlife crime. As CITES Secretary General from 2010-2018, I was directly involved in multiple collective efforts to achieve this objective, including establishing, institutionalising and attracting resources for the International Consortium to Combat Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) – which I chaired for its first eight years, working with Gabon and Germany on the first ever UNGA Resolution on tackling illicit wildlife trafficking, with the United for Wildlife Transport Taskforce, the GEF and the World Bank on creating the Global Wildlife Programme, and with UNODC on its first World Wildlife Crime Report in 2016.

I mention these select few examples, as I have seen for myself the progress we have made through this heightened international cooperation and national action. These endeavours have resulted in greater attention and resources being dedicated to the issue, which is encouraging. But it’s equally clear that these gains are both insufficient and fragile. Notwithstanding these efforts, we are still nowhere near ending wildlife crime. Instead, we see these crimes continue to escalate against a backdrop of rapidly changing environmental, human health, and security challenges.

Just two weeks ago park rangers were tragically killed in an ambush in W National Park, Benin. Horrific incidents like these are happening far too often. We must better tackle the demand and the trafficking to relieve the pressure on our brave rangers who are serving in the front lines, and this will require much deeper international cooperation and national action across source, transit and destination countries.

There comes a point when one must recognise that what is being done is not enough. Our current international criminal law framework is not fit for purpose in addressing today’s global environmental realities, especially as it relates to the scourge of wildlife crime.

CITES is often referred to as providing some form of legal framework, but it is limited in scope and it was not designed to deal with wildlife crime. It is a 50 year old trade-related convention, not a crime-related convention. It does not oblige States to criminalise breaches of the Convention, it only applies to cross border movement of wildlife, and not, for example, to illegal harvesting or poaching, and it applies to a limited number of species.

CITES obliges Parties to create management and scientific authorities, not enforcement authorities, and it is not a natural forum for the enforcement or wider criminal justice community. But, in the absence of any alternative at the time, we made the best possible use of CITES to help galvanise international cooperation and national action.

CITES is an important convention and it has a role to play. But CITES does not provide the international legal framework we need, and a comprehensive legally binding regime for tackling wildlife crime, within the framework of international criminal law, rather than trade law, is beyond the scope of CITES.

We must address all species that are being trafficked, not just the 38,000 species listed under CITES (the UN World Wildlife Crime Report 2020 says 6,000 of which are represented in illegal trade), which is just 0.5% of the world’s eight million species. The UN World Wildlife Crime Report notes that “millions of species” that are not listed by CITES may be illegally harvested and traded, especially timber and fish. It makes no sense to only pay attention to a limited number of species, and usually only once they are threatened with extinction, especially when one looks at the scale, nature and consequences of fisheries and forestry crime.

We must shake up the status quo, which is inadequate to meet current challenges, and make transformative changes to our system if we want to change course.

As I alluded to earlier, there are many disparate, non-binding Resolutions and initiatives in this area, all of which are good in their own right, but they have not generated the level of political support, engagement of relevant agencies at all levels, the necessary financial or human resources or national action that is required to end wildlife crime. And there is no global centre of gravity for advancing cooperative efforts to combat and prevent wildlife crime, or for reviewing the progress being made.

We must now embed both combating and preventing wildlife crime where it belongs, namely into the international criminal law framework, with the UNODC, the UN Conventions it hosts, the UN Crime Commission, and the UN Vienna duty station leading a global cooperative, coordinated effort, including in reviewing progress. A binding legal agreement under the UNTOC will provide an enduring global platform that will act as a catalyst for heightened international cooperation and national action, both of which are desperately needed, and a forum for the regular review of progress.

And, if adopted, a Protocol would be the first time that a crime that has an effect on the environment is directly addressed through the international criminal law framework, and be the first global legally binding instrument to include an agreed definition on wildlife crime. As with the Protocol on trafficking in persons, such a definition could facilitate a convergence in national approaches regarding the establishment of domestic criminal offences that would support efficient international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting wildlife trafficking cases. I’ve drawn from the UNODC in making this statement, and it is something Legal Atlas, an International Champion with EWC, has also identified through its work in reviewing national legislation.

The content of a Protocol is something that States would determine through an intergovernmental negotiating process. However, a Protocol would include specific obligations on how States will work together to both combat and prevent these serious crimes.

Drawing upon the three existing UNTOC Protocols, as well as national legislation from many countries, including Australia, China, Mexico, Mozambique, and the US, as well as the UNODC guide on drafting legislation to combat wildlife crime, EWC has, in order to help facilitate the discussion, outlined some of the provisions that could be contemplated.

As mentioned earlier, States could, through a Protocol, agree on a definition of wildlife crime and on a wide range of obligations to both prevent and combat such crimes. It could, for example:

- set out the conduct that is to be criminalised, and

- cover any species of wild fauna or flora, including fish and timber species, that is protected under any international or, importantly, any national law, and address the harvesting, taking, possession, purchase, import or export, or introduction from the sea of illicitly traded wildlife.

And it could oblige States 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, representing a remarkable expression of comity between nations, a mutual respect for one another’s laws.

- address the role and responsibilities of the carriers of contraband.

- verify of the legitimacy and validity of documents, including any documents suspected of being misused.

- cooperate on training and technical assistance.

- raise public awareness, and to take measures to discourage demand.

- share information, such as on known groups active in illicit trafficking, on their concealment methods, and known transport routes, and legislative experiences and practices.

- share forensic samples, and

- consider measures that will permit the denial of entry or revocation of visas of persons implicated in the commission of offences.

Since we did this preliminary work, several other suggestions have been made by the many States and organisations we have interacted with, such as to include obligations relating to the protection of environmental defenders and whistleblowers, and on the return of seized and confiscated contraband to the source country.

And finally, a Protocol would automatically trigger all the tools available under the UNTOC, which Ian has outlined so well, and it would fall under the review mechanism recently adopted for the Convention and its Protocols.

It would do so, without requiring States to make all such offences punishable by four years imprisonment or more. This would reflect the desirability of providing for a broader range of penalty options for such crimes, based on the value of the contraband and the level of harm caused, including community service orders, restitution, paying damages and fines, as well as imprisonment.

As mentioned in my welcoming remarks (see below), the Presidents of Angola, Costa Rica, Gabon and Malawi have made a powerful united call for a new Protocol. In our earlier session, Dr. Paula Cohelo, the Secretary of the Environment for Angola, has personally, and passionately, relayed the views of her President. Today, I have briefly outlined what such a Protocol could address, and I am sure there are many other good ideas out there as to what it could contain. If negotiations proceed, it will be for States alone to determine the content of the Protocol.

Colleagues, it’s the local and indigenous communities living amongst wildlife, legitimate investors, and the governments of source countries, as well as our global biodiversity, climate, health, and security, that should benefit from the world’s wildlife, and not organised criminals. Achieving that aspiration is in everyone’s interest, and if States decide to make the best use of the UNTOC in tackling wildlife crime, it will go a long way towards making that aspiration a reality.

Thank you Tanya.

-----

Welcoming Remarks

Thank you Tanya, good afternoon and a very warm welcome to everyone who has joined us today, either in person in Vienna or online. And a very special welcome to the representatives of Member States of the UN Crime Commission who are with us today.

Apologies for not being able to join you in person myself. I was in Vienna just last week for the UN Crime Commission’s Expert Discussions on Crimes that Affect the Environment but I was not able to make it back again this week. However, Tanya, along with our good colleague, Alice Pasqualato, from EWC are there in person in Vienna.

Let me start by acknowledging Dr. Paula Coelho, Secretary of the Environment for Angola who has joined us for this welcoming session. Paula is one of the most hard working people I know, and she is an inspiration to all of us. Paula has a huge work load this year with so many major meetings having been postponed to 2022, but despite her pressing commitments, she has joined us for the welcoming session, for which we are deeply grateful, and we will hear from Paula in a little while.

I would also acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of the President of Angola, H.E. Jo?o Louren?o, who, as Paula will tell us, last September called for a new global agreement to combat wildlife crime taking the form of an additional Protocol under the UNTOC. In doing so, H.E. joined with the President of Gabon, H.E. Ali Bongo Ondimba and the President of Costa Rica, H.E. Carlos Alvarado Quesada, who jointly called for a new global agreement on wildlife crime, in May of last year. And just last week, the President of Malawi, H.E. Dr Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera, joined this call through a powerful statement he released on 16 February.

This visionary call is made by the Presidents of four biodiverse rich, source countries that are deeply committed to combating wildlife crime. In their statements, they have recognised that our global agreements and aspirations to protect our biodiversity on land and at sea, tackle climate change, prevent the next pandemic and achieve sustainable development, will not be met, unless we seriously scale up our cooperative efforts to tackle wildlife crime.

It is States that make international law and EWC’s work is orientated around how it can, upon request, best support Angola, Costa Rica, Gabon and Malawi carry forward the call made by their respective Presidents.

Support for an additional Protocol under the UNTOC has also been expressed by the European Commission, in the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025.

Many individual speakers, coming from across all regions, have also come forward in support of a Protocol, including 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, and Dr Jane Goodall, amongst many others.

Additionally, EWC currently has 26 International Champion organisations coming from across all sectors and regions that are supporting calls for such an agreement. These 26 Champion organisations include ADM Capital, the African Wildlife Foundation, ENV Vietnam, the Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime, the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, the International Rangers Federation, the Wildlife Justice Commission, the Wildlife Trust of India, and the World Oceans Council, with the most recent organisation to join being the Lilongwe Wildlife Trust of Malawi.

I would also like to recognise the leadership of our host for today, Prof. Tanya Wyatt, and the Northumbria University, for pulling together today’s event and for inviting the EWC and the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime, to co-sponsor the event with the University.

We have a wonderful array of speakers joining us today, and I extend my thanks to everyone who has volunteered their time to be on the Panel with us today.

In our first session, we will hear about the history and evolution of the UNTOC, the case for an additional protocol under the Convention on combatting and preventing illicit wildlife trafficking, the serious global threats posed by these crimes and how they converge with other crimes, as well as how such a protocol could apply to marine species.

After a short break, we will return and hear about [the benefits of the firearms Protocol], international mechanisms for tackling illicit wildlife trafficking, and we will also have time to take some questions.

Our good moderator for today, Tanya Wyatt, has served as a Technical Advisor to EWC since its inception, and I am sure Tanya will keep us all on track as we embark on a most interesting discussion over the next three hours or so.

So with that, on behalf of all of the sponsors and co-sponsors of today’s event, welcome, thank you for joining us, and I’ll now hand back to you Tanya to formally introduce the Secretary of the Environment for Angola.