Diplomacy_Lab_Final_Report_2014

Responses to IUU Fishing and Wildlife Poaching/Trafficking:
A Review of the Literature
Adriana Alvarado, Daniel DeStefano, Monnero Guervil,
Christine Li & Francisco Nuñez
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: JONATHAN S. SIMMONS
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Fall, 2014
The
names
of
student
authors
are
in
alphabetical
order,
and
not
in
the
order
of
authorship.

DeStefano
&
Nuñez
authored
the
responses
to
fisheries;
Alvarado,
Guervil
and
Li
wrote
the
responses
to
megafauna.

The
work
was
written
under
the
supervision
of
Gohar
Petrossian,
Ph.D.,
Assistant
Professor,
John
Jay
College
of
Criminal
Justice,
Department
of

Criminal
Justice;
and
Julie
Viollaz,
Ph.D.
Candidate,
Department
of
Criminal
Justice,
CUNY
Graduate
Center.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary…………..…………………………………………………………………3
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES: Fisheries ........................................................................ 7
International level
...................................................................................................................................
7

Regional level
........................................................................................................................................
11

Local/Country level
...............................................................................................................................
27

LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES: Megafauna.................................................................. 43

International level
.................................................................................................................................
44

Regional level
........................................................................................................................................
49

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION RESPONSES: Fisheries..................................................... 55
Regional level
........................................................................................................................................
56

Country level
.........................................................................................................................................
62

Local/City level
......................................................................................................................................
66

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION RESPONSES: Megafauna ................................................ 74

Local/City level
......................................................................................................................................
78

Empirical Research and Policy Recommendations: Fisheries..................................................... 93

Empirical Research and Policy Recommendations: Megafauna............................................... 101

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................. 107

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Research shows that both the poaching of megafauna and the illegal fishing of marine fauna
continue to jeopardize the extinction of many species. The main issue surrounding the protection
of megafauna and fisheries continues to be the lack of effective governmental policy to protect
habitats, the neglect of local actors in complying with state policy concerning wildlife protection,
and the refusal of certain states to accept and comply with international mandates. Finding and
implementing effective policies that have been proven to work on a local, regional, or
international levels continues to be paramount, as several species that are critical for individual
actor’s financial income and the success of diverse ecosystems are either being severely
threatened or are already endangered.
Challenges:
The Failure of States to Comply at an International Level consistently proves to be
problematic in the fight against illegal fishing and the poaching of megafauna. Only 50% of the
states party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) comply with all the terms of this international agreement. This has created a
situation where wildlife poachers are not deterred from poaching because CITES guidelines are
not implemented in state legislation and this gives poachers the opportunity to engage in wildlife
crime.
High Cost of Enforcement at a Regional and Local Level has proven to be a significant
barrier in combatting wildlife crime. Research indicates that wildlife crimes, such as illegal
fishing, can be deterred or better prevented if the proper investment is given to enforcement on a
regional or local level. Often enforcement equipment, such as satellite-based vessel monitoring
systems, global positioning systems, and radios are costly and cannot be afforded by developing
countries without the assistance of nongovernmental or international organizations. Such is the
case in Indonesia, where approximately 30% of the world’s illegal, unreported, and unregulated
(IUU) fishing occurs. In addition, the cost of training and hiring more legitimate law
enforcement is presented as an unrealistic idea in developing states. As a result, developing

4

countries often have had to rely on the fragile legitimacy of local law enforcement, ineffective
state policies, and compliance of local actors.
Lack of Compliance among Local Actors has resulted in much research being devoted to why
wildlife crimes occur. Quite simply, in places like Fiji, Indonesia, or the Eastern Tropical Pacific
Marine Corridor, overfishing and fishing in protected areas occurs because law enforcement does
not have the ability/capacity to enforce wildlife protection laws, and there is strong incentive to
commit wildlife crime because it provides a lucrative source of income for locals and individuals
further up the trafficking chain (lucrative relative to the average local annual income). The same
goes the poaching of megafauna.
Best Practices:
Financial Incentives to Induce Compliance among Local Actors has produced positive
outcomes. Such an example can be seen in Timor-Leste where local fishing actors can acquire
global positioning systems in exchange for intelligence provided to local law enforcement on
illegal fishing, improving local law enforcement’s knowledge of illegal fishing and their ability
to prevent it. Another example can be seen in Kenya where local communities have been
educated on the value of elephant tourism. As a result, local Kenyan communities have put more
of an emphasis on the prevention of elephant poaching as tourism brings in money that benefits
the community as a whole.
Greater Regional Pressure for States to Comply is an effective method to deter wildlife
crime. Pressure by states to join regional fisheries management organizations has produced
positive outcomes including multilateral state enforcement of oceanic laws, set guidelines for
regions making enforcement of the law easier, and close to equal punishment between states for
similar criminal behavior. State compliance has served as a great deterrent to such activities as
illegal fishing and overfishing because regional and local law enforcement seems more
legitimate and there is a higher probability of being penalized and not obtaining profits from
wildlife crime.

5

Sharing of Intelligence between states, local actors, nongovernmental organizations, and local
law enforcement has also proven to be a great way to combat megafauna poaching and illegal
fishing. The sharing of information between actors has led to the discovery of new patterns of
deviant behavior, a lesser emphasis on local law enforcement to stop wildlife crime by
themselves, and the ability to acquire new knowledge that is reflected in state legislation to
prevent wildlife crime. Such evidence can be seen with the U.S.-based Coalition Against
Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT), which partnered with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) to gather intelligence on wildlife poaching and
trafficking. This resulted in a number of successful raids on poachers in Thailand who illegally
hunt and traffic megafauna.
Policy-Relevant Recommendations:
1. Greater Education of Local Communities – When communities were educated on the
harms of poaching or overfishing, such as in Kenya and in Maine, U.S.A, greater
conservation gains were made solely through community compliance.
2. Regional Databases to Share Information – This strategy could be particularly
effective in combatting illegal fishing. If all states in a region have law enforcement enter
information into a database available to all, enforcement is both much easier and more
effective. Resources are used in more strategic ways. Such information includes
documentation of infractions made by vessels, reasons for why vessels were denied entry
to a port, and recent information about fishing vessels’ locations. Having such
intelligence may give a head start to law enforcement trying to identify frequent violators.
A similar system could be designed for poaching incidents in neighboring countries.
3. Increased Funding for Conservation Areas – This recommendation has relevance to
fisheries but more directly pertains to megafauna and the protection of their habitats.
With larger enclosed areas, protection such as fencing, and law enforcement presence,
such megafauna as tigers, leopards, and lions may naturally increase their population
numbers. Conservation sanctuaries with greater protection of Asiatic Lions have been
effective in India where the Asiatic Lion population has grown in recent years. Note that
most conservation areas to date are too small to support large populations of megafauna

6

and that the creation of conservation areas must be coupled with migratory corridors
between parks so wildlife can travel between protected area.
4. Stronger International Pressure to Comply with International Law – International
legislation like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) has been met with limited compliance and success. As a result,
there is a definite need to implement stronger penalties for states who are party to such
agreements yet do not follow its regulations. Such penalties as trade embargos and
international sanctions seem appropriate because the international community has
implemented such penalties in the past for human rights issues and failure to meet
environmental standards. The international community complying with international
legislation and presenting a firm stance on wildlife crime will give states a reason to
actively enforce wildlife crime laws and even create their own locally-tailored legislation
to prevent wildlife crime.

7

LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES
FISHERIES

8

International level
Response Strategy #1
Description: The United Nations through Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with the
assistance of regional fisheries management organization (RFMOs), has implemented a
multilayer International Plan of Action (IPOA) to better prevent illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing (Bray, 2000). RFMOs, and the FAO have suggested the use of
international instruments, such as resolutions and treaties, to induce state compliance to stop
illegal fishing at the international level. On the regional level, the use of sanctions and economic
incentives have been implemented to ensure state compliance with regional standards and
international law to better manage illegal fishing practices. The use of guidelines for national
legislation has also been strongly encouraged to ensure states have rigid domestic legislation and
penalties in place. The five main tenets of the FAO are national legislation and plans of action,
cooperation among states, coastal state measures, port state measures, and internationally agreed
market-related measures. The idea is that greater state compliance, ratification of international
law, shared intelligence, and pressure to comply will form a formidable partnership in the fight
against IUU fishing (Riddle, 2006).
Actors Involved:
• All states party to the United Nations – agree to implement, ratify, and comply with set
international laws on IUU fishing.
• States party to regional fisheries management organizations – comply with international
law and set regional guidelines for enforcing and punishing IUU fishing.
• Individual states – responsible for implementing legitimate state policies that will deter
actors from IUU fishing.
Species Targeted:
• All marine wildlife subject to IUU fishing practices

9

Response Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
It gives a clear outline on how to combat
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
It requires complete transparency; something
that is very difficult for many countries to
agree to.
Provides guidelines on how partnerships
would work in the region.
There are no specifics on the funding for this
type of strategy.
Promotes funding of research in order to
combat illegal fishing more effectively.
It does not address the economic difficulties
that actors that rely on fishing in lesser-
developed states may endure as a result of
these policies.
It addresses multiple layers and aspects of
illegal fishing.
It does not address how the overall market for
fish may change as a result of these policies.
The International Plan of Action provides a good starting point for discussion to combat illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing while setting a basic model of how to prevent illegal fishing
at various levels of governance. Unfortunately, it is not specific enough and relies too heavily on
state compliance for success.

10

Description: Throughout the world, current enforcement strategies against IUU fishing do not
deter violators from a purely economic standpoint. Schmidt (2005) points out how the cost of the
IUU fish is worth more than the potential penalties. Using this point, recommendations are made
regarding how RFMOs can alter the spectrum, and contribute to the management of fisheries.
Suggestions include increased observance on the area in question, which increases the likelihood
of the violator having a perception that he/she will be caught. Additionally, when a violator is
captured, the author suggests “collective penalties”, which would punish the origin nation of the
offender by either limiting the resource allotment for that country or banning it outright. Finally,
through the use of trade and catch documentation schemes (utilized by CCALMR, ICCAT, and
CCSBT), tabs can be placed on legal catches. The trade and catch documentation has been
successful so far, as it gives national businesses among others information and data previously
uncollected by RFMOs. Additionally, by using the collected data, a comprehensive list of vessels
that are and are not permitted to fish within the fishery.
Actors involved: Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.
Species Targeted: All species in the high seas
Response Pros and Cons:
Pros Cons
Would give RFMO’s a means to “punish”, no
allowed to mete fines, can’t arrest etc.
RFMO’s may run into problems attempting
to collective punish a country for one
fleet’s violation.
Trade and catch documentation gives a resource
of information not just to RFMOs, but to nation
states as well.
Others…
The success of RFMOs trickles down to the
success of smaller scale conservation or
enforcement projects.

11

Regional level
Description: Vessels sailing under flags of convenience are a problem for regional fisheries
management organizations (RFMOs), because of the loophole to the regulations they create. In
order to be under the legal standards of an RFMO, a nation must agree to enter into the
partnership attempting to conserve the area. Non-flag states can be incentivized due to the
attractive benefits received by their vessels. Recommendations to further reduce the impact of
non-flag states include: creating free ports (which would reduce the attractiveness of joining a
non-flag state), increased surveillance, increased license regulations, and enforcement, as well as
fish tracking and verification. The author warns that what may work in one region may not
necessarily work in another, meaning that each region may have unique issues to deal with, and
this is something that needs to be taken into consideration. An exact 9-point plan is proposed as
follows (The Department of International Development of the UK, 2008):
1. The strengthening of port State control over national and international fleets in the
landing, trans-shipment and servicing of fishing vessels (a cost effective and more
sustainable form of control than employing conventional MCS activities).
2. The development of greater traceability. Further research on this subject is needed as to
how such a strategy could be implemented. Current EU food safety legislation should be
better enforced to help close the important EU market to illegally caught fish and
improve traceability.
3. Greater use could be made of electronic surveillance technology to control fishing
vessels. A reliance on sophisticated technology should be avoided and further research is
needed on the cost-benefit of various deterrent measures versus the economics of IUU
operations.
4. Make the practice of transshipment of fish at sea illegal. This should be a regional
initiative.
5. More research should be done on investigating and engaging companies owning and
operating these bunkering vessels to not service known IUU fishing vessels.
6. There should be a single, publicly available list of black-listed vessels for all nations to
use to ensure IUU vessels are prevented from entering port.

12

7. Penalties (fines) must be significantly increased to deter IUU activities. Further
research on the level of penalties that should be imposed is recommended.
8. International aid and assistance should be provided to build capacity and strengthen
fisheries governance. Potential policy conflicts need to be resolved (such as between the
preferential access for foreign fishing vessels (from the EU for example) and the need to
ensure sustainable measures to tackle IUU issues.
9. A regional approach to the control of IUU fishing, Flags of Non-Compliance and Ports
of Non-Compliance should be adopted.
Actors involved: States in the Southern Africa Development Countries region.
Species Targeted: Those targeted for IUU fishing
Response Pros and Cons:
Pros Cons
Enforcement strategies eloquently laid out in rule
format
Ports of non-compliance can still
remain a threat, deterrence may help
but nothing is definitively sanctioning
the violators
Partnership between a region and outside country
shows strong global community ties
Attempts to keep out of region, no
punitive enforcement measures (such
as detainment of vessel) leaves
possibility of resurgence in the future

13

Description: In 2008, the Council of the European Union adopted a Council Regulation
establishing a community system to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU fishing. The framework of
the Council Regulation is centered on actors’ access to European Union markets for fish and
partly conditioned by the extent to which a country, area or region of origin is demonstrably or
increasingly free of IUU fishing (Tsamenyi, Palma, Milligan, & Mfodwo, 2010).
The legislation can be broken down into four components:
Port State Measures Against Third-Country Vessels:
• Landings or transshipments by third-country fishing vessels are required to take place
only in designated ports of EU member states and subject to specific conditions.
• Designation of ports to receive fishing vessels.
• Advance notification requirements.
• Regular (not special) Port inspection activities.
• Flag-state notification procedures for foreign vessels
Catch Documentation Scheme:
• Examining products.
• Verifying declaration data and authenticity of documents.
• Examining the accounts of operators and other records.
• Inspecting means of transport, including containers.
• Inspecting storage places of the products.
• Carrying out official inquiries.
• May request the assistance of the competent authorities of the flag State or of county
where fishery products were imported from.
• Importers must submit validated catch certificates to the competed authorities of the EU
Member states.
IUU Vessel Listing (how it is organized/what it contains):
• Compliance with the EU IUU Regulation.

14

• Catch data.
• Trade information obtained from national statistics and other reliable sources.
• Vessel registers and databases.
• RFMO catch documents or statistical programs.
• Reports on sightings of presumed IUU vessels, including information obtained by
RFMOs.
• Other relevant information obtained in ports or on fishing grounds.
• Other additional information provided by EU Member states
• Listing of Non-Cooperating States (how it is organized/what it contains):
• The State’s implementation of relevant international obligations.
• The IUU fishing record of such a State and its nationals
Records from the State on the enforcement actions it took to combat IUU fishing activities by its
vessels, nationals and operators.
Actors Involved:
• European Union – attempting to deter actors from IUU fishing and get more uniformity
across Europe as to regulations pertaining to IUU fishing.
• States within the European Union – Expected to adhere and comply with regional
standards the European Union has for illegal fishing.
• Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (Europe) – Work with the European
Union to clarify ambiguities in regards to IUU fishing and expected standards.
Species Targeted: Marine wildlife in European Union states’ jurisdiction

15

Pros Cons
Regional community involved in policing and
enforcement of IUU fishing.
Difficult to get all the countries that receive
imports to comply.
States are motivated to combat IUU fishing
because of potential EU sanctions.
Not all European countries are part of the
EU.
Uniform policy that is clear and easy to
enforce.
There may be possibility of falsifying
documents.
The list of IUU offenders makes it harder for
the major perpetrators to continue fishing
illegally.
This Council Regulation has a high probability of success within Europe as states that are
members of the European Union feel significant pressure to comply with regional standards and
do not want to face possible of financial penalties and EU sanctions.

16

Description: In 2004, the governments of Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador and Colombia signed an
agreement to create the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR). The goal of CMAR
was to improve regional enforcement mechanisms in an effort to better prevent overexploitation
of marine wildlife, habitat loss, and illegal fishing. CMAR is a part of the Eastern Tropical
Pacific Seascape (ETPS) initiative, which, as a whole, planned for greater protection of marine
wildlife and curbing of illegal fishing through improved surveillance and detection of vessels,
interception and arrest of deviant actors, stricter and swifter prosecution of parties, and the
introduction of more formidable sanctions. Some specific enforcement mechanisms included a
radar on ports in the region to locate vessels at all times, domestic legislation to implement the
required use of tracking devices on all vessels, more frequent patrols that are documented and
detailed by law enforcement, and a clearer legal framework for all fishing actors to understand
the penalties and sanctions of deviant behavior (Bigue, et al., 2010).
Actors Involved:
• Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Panama - Work together to ensure Eastern Tropical
Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR) and Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (ETPS) protect
marine wildlife, deter actors from illegal fishing, and overexploitation of certain marine
species via overfishing.
Species Targeted: all marine wildlife in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape

17

Pros Cons
With radar being used there will more
intelligence on vessels’ whereabouts and
illegal fishing practices.
Costs of radars are US $75,000, tracking
devices US $50,000.
Improving detection equipment is a good
immediate counter to the illegal, unreported,
and unregulated fishing.
There is no urgency in the creation of
legislation to obligate vessels to use a tracking
system.
Addresses issue of the advantageous speed of
perpetrators’ boats.
Cost of -7 more law enforcement being
employed is between US$48,000-US$67,000
annually.
Sanctions can be a form of additional income
for a state and can be used to support
technology improvements.
More personnel are not feasible in developing
states like Costa Rica.
Sanctions can also help fund the hiring of
more law enforcement like park wardens
who patrol the waterfronts.
Park wardens’ salaries are not competitive.
This regional legislation offers a good premise as it is based on willing regional compliance
between states with clear mandates and goals. Unfortunately this legislation may prove to be too
idealistic at present since developing states in this region do not have the ability to hire more law
enforcement, pay current law enforcement competitive wages, and invest in technology that will
effectively combat illegal fishing within the region.

18

Description: An often-tricky dilemma created by IUU fishing is who has the authority to create
and enforce legislation, especially when international legislation, but domestic legislation, is in
place. Such is the case in the Caribbean, region where states through the United Nations FAO,
and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), have the right and
authority to enforce and patrol their fisheries to combat IUU fishing. States in the Caribbean
region have often made themselves party to international legislation on illegal fishing but have
not instituted domestic legislation that also effectively combats deviant behavior. Part of the
reason for the lack of domestic legislation in regards to IUU fishing is a lack of resources or
political will as seen in such states like Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. For example, in
Jamaica, state courts have ruled against the government when it attempted to limit the farming
and exportation of an endangered marine wildlife species know as the Queen Conch (Haughton,
2003).
Actors involved:
• Caribbean States – Responsible for enacting domestic legislation to protect marine
wildlife.
• Domestic Courts – Have failed to protect marine wildlife with inadequate rulings on
conservation.
Species Targeted: All marine wildlife in Caribbean region.
Pros Cons
United front against IUU fishing in a
developing region.
While an agreement on a smaller scale may
make sense, lack of resources remains an issue.
Narrows focus to domestic legislation or no
domestic protection laws at all.
There is an obvious need for Caribbean states to better protect marine wildlife and guard against
IUU fishing through domestic legislation. International or nongovernmental assistance may be
required to enact domestic policy that is effective.

19

Description: The Mediterranean Sea has had substantial problems with vessels using driftnets
that are destructive to marine wildlife habitats and unnecessarily capture of unintended species
also known as by-catch. Both the European Union and the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) have declared driftnets to be illegal but there is minimal
domestic legislation on driftnets and some states, such as Italy and France, have taken an
apathetic approach to their use. It has been suggested that vessels should be compensated for not
using driftnets in order to channel fishermen into more legitimate fishing practices. In addition
the Environmental Justice Foundation has recommended a stronger and more transparent
investigation protocol between the European Union and local law enforcement and stronger
sanctions against states that do not comply with the European Union’s regulations on the use
driftnets (Baulch, van der Werf, & Perry, 2013).
Actors Involved:
• European Union Member States – have the obligation to comply with European Union
standards to better protect marine wildlife.
Species Targeted: Tuna, sperm whales, fish that is inadvertently farmed with the use of driftnets
(by-catch).
Pros Cons
Addresses a specific issue that
has been problematic to a region.
Recommendations are either untested or been deemed
ineffective.
May be difficult to enforce new measures on already
offending member nations.
Tougher recommended penalties may be needed to induce state compliance and deter the use of
driftnets.

20

Description: The European Commission in 2008 made a series of enhancements to its illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing regulations. The new regulations stated that vessels
must give prior notification of landings, transshipments and consignments and set benchmark
criteria for port inspections that all states were expected to follow (Council Regulation, 2008,
p.4). In addition, a list of recognized catch documentation schemes for Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations was created along with deadlines for the submission of catch
certificates, risk management criteria for verifications of these certificates, and a set standard for
administrative cooperation with third party countries. Lastly the Council agreed that European
Union member states will have to impose a maximum sanction of at least five times the value of
the fishery products obtained by committing a serious IUU infringement and eight times the
value of the fishery products in case of a repeated infringement within a five year period
(European Council, 2008).
Actors Involved:
• European Union Member States – Agree to European Council Regulation and to comply
with legislation.
Species Targeted: Marine wildlife that is in the jurisdiction of European Union member states
Pros Cons
Builds on existing policies and European agenda
in regards to IUU fishing.
Sanctions may be deemed unlawful or not
in accordance with certain states agendas.
Promotes transparency and state compliance. Not everyone has the technology or funds
to implement surveillance measures.
Sanctions are severe enough to ensure states
comply and enforce regulations.
The European Council Resolution has a high probability of being a successful legislation
because it has a high chance of state compliance given possible major sanctions if the states do
not comply.

21

Description: The United Nations FAO adopted a Reflagging Agreement in 1993 to prevent
vessels from undermining the effectiveness of international conservation and management
measures through reflagging. The Agreement stated no fishing vessel may be authorized to fish
on the high seas unless it is authorized by the appropriate authorities, there must be a genuine
link between vessels and their flag states to fish on high seas, and that no party can authorize any
fishing vessels to fly its flag unless it is satisfied that it is able exercise its responsibility under
the FAO legislation (Aqorau, 2000). This Reflagging Agreement also served as a discussion
starter for certain Pacific Island States via the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) to
agree to implement better information sharing systems and legislation in line with FAO
standards. Part of the Pacific Islands transparency effort involved a regional register of foreign
vessels, which provides information about the vessel’s owners, operators and masters and
provides a history of any changes in that information occurring over the years. It also included
vessel monitoring systems that provide real time data to coastal states via the National Fisheries
Surveillance Centers (NFSC).
Actors Involved:
• Pacific Island States – Share information and agree to regional standard to better combat
IUU fishing.
• National Fisheries Surveillance Centers (NFSC) Regional Enforcement – Responsible for
sharing information on IUU fishing and revealing patterns of deviant behavior.

22

Pros Cons
Transparency between agencies vital for
effective enforcement and the creation of
future policies to stop illegal fishing.
Legal language often unclear/not specific
enough.
Vessel Monitoring Systems are an efficient
way to track foreign vessels in states’
exclusive economic zone.
Law Enforcement Measures: not clear if it
proposes to extend the enforcement
jurisdiction of a party into the territorial zones
of another party or
Enhanced surveillance and sharing of
intelligence a good way to track illegal
vessels and their activities.
VMS: Difficult to get everyone to comply.

23

Description: The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has
enacted several resolutions and recommendations for states to follow in an effort to better protect
tuna in the Atlantic Ocean. As an intergovernmental organization, ICCAT has increased liability
for illegal fishing offenders by recommending that all states party to ICCAT have the duty to
cooperate with other States and take any measure necessary for the conservation and
management of marine resources. This includes preventing the reflagging of vessels to avoid
internationally agreed conservation and management measures, maintaining healthy populations
of tuna and tuna-like fishes in the Atlantic at levels and harvesting only the maximum
sustainable yield, and ensuring inspection by legitimate law enforcement once a vessel has
entered a port. In addition ICCAT has instituted a conservation program for Bluefin Tuna which
raises awareness about overfishing, international law and agreements relating to illegal fishing,
and the sanctions for not complying with regional guidelines and international law (International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 1992) (International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 1996) (International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas, 1999) (Scheiber, Mengerink, & Song, 2007).
Actors Involved:
• States that comply with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tuna (ICCAT) – States agree to recommendations and policies that set the regional
standard and suggested behavior.
• Japan and Taiwan – Two states known for the farming of Bluefin Tuna that are subjected
to a total allowable catch of Bluefin Tuna per year by ICCAT.
Species Targeted: Bluefin Tuna

24

Pros Cons
Ignorance does not exempt actors from
liability.
Corruption is not addressed in re-flagging
states.
Minimizes the possibility of discrimination in
inspection.
There is no tangible method to making sure
countries are following these regulations.
Encourages a thorough inspection of vessels.
The spread of information regarding failure of
inspections helps law enforcement refine their
methods.

25

Description: The Baltic Sea Cod fishery was selected as a fishery of high risk due to IUU
fishing. To combat IUU fishing, states agreed to set up vessel monitoring systems that would
provide better surveillance, control, and information on fishing vessels. States also agreed to
identify inspection priorities, establish administrative inquiries into cod quotas, free up and re-
direct European inspector time away from regional fisheries management organizations
(RFMOs) duties, and ensure that member states are implementing deterrents to IUU fishing.
There is also cooperation by the Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA AKA The Commission) in
inspection and monitoring work by RFMOs and states involved. The Commission inspectors’
priorities are the application of conservation and enforcement measures by member states on fish
stocks that are outside legal limits, verifying these measures’ effectiveness, ensuring compliance
with nonpartisan countries in fishing agreements, and implementing the new technological
requirements adopted by the new common fisheries policy ( ORCA-EU, 2007).
Actors Involved:
• Fisheries Control Agency – work to preserve fish stocks in Baltic Sea and ensure state
compliance.
• States on or in Proximity to Baltic Sea – Responsible for preserving fish stocks, adhering
to regional set standards, and ensuring multilateral state compliance.
Species Targeted: Cod in the Baltic Sea

26

Pros Cons
Focused deterrence on major offenders can
prove to be effective.
Legislation has limited power as third parties
can deny inspection.
An agency dedicated specifically to the
problems specific fisheries have as far as IUU
fishing.
Commission inspections can only take place
on fishing vessels, places of first landing, or
first point of sales unless accompanied by
national inspectors.
Addresses the relevant issue of overfishing
and harvesting in conservation areas with
vessel monitoring systems.
Commission inspections of business premises
or vehicles transporting fish can only take
place when accompanied by national
inspectors.
Member states are not obliged to act against
individuals on the basis of findings from a
Commission inspection report.
As seen with much international law, the effectiveness of this policy is really determined by the
willingness of regional states to comply, rather than by the language of the agreement.

27

Local/Country level
Description: In Indonesia, the use of satellite-based vessel monitoring system has been used to
deter fishing actors from engaging in IUU fishing and provide intelligence on fishing activities.
These satellite monitoring systems provide information on domestic and foreign fishing vessels
that operate in Indonesia’s waters or its jurisdiction. They have proved to be an effective
enforcement mechanism, as greater intelligence has led to more arrests of offenders engaged in
IUU fishing (Sodik, 2009). The Indonesian government, to complement satellite-based vessel
monitoring systems, has implemented legislation making it mandatory for all Indonesian-flagged
vessels to carry and operate a transmitter and report their fishing location at least once every
hour.
Actors Involved:
• Indonesian Government – trying to deter illegal fishing and better monitor and enforce
illegal behavior such as IUU fishing.
Species Targeted: Marine wildlife within Indonesian waters and jurisdiction
Pros Cons
Enhancement of intelligence and surveillance
in regards to fishing; greater monitoring,
control, and surveillance of waters.
The costs of operation are very high.
Helps catch deviant actors in the commission
of illicit behavior for prosecution purposes. Prosecution of foreign vessels is still an area
of ambiguity.
Serves as a deterrent for IUU fishing because
vessels must report status and location
making it hard to fish in protected areas.

28

Proves to be an effective piece of domestic legislation because at the very least there is more
information and data being provided for law enforcement on illicit behavior. The mandatory
carrying of a transmitter with hourly position reporting can be effective in preventing illegal
fishing. The use of satellite to find those vessels that are in restricted areas is also effective in
combating wild life crimes. However, the costs of running such an operation can be too high for
third world countries where IUU fishing is most widespread.

29

Description: This proposed strategy seen in Norway was used to combat the overfishing of cod
and tuna when quantities of these fish increased due to climate change. In 1993, Norway
implemented that any vessel using Norwegian ports as outlets for fishing cargo, including
Northeast Arctic cod, must document their right to participate in fishing in the region (Stokke,
2009). Failure to do so resulted in a ban for vessels and prohibition from Norwegian harbors.
Because of this legislation the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) implemented
a control and enforcement scheme with more strict reporting procedures, satellite based vessel
monitoring, mutual inspection rights on the high seas and sterner flag state commitments to
inspect and prosecute violations. This included a confirmation procedure where tracking data
information must match vessel reports (Stokke, 2009). Failure to comply with these standards
could also result in blacklisting of vessels, revocation of fishing licenses, and fines.
Actors Involved:
• Norway – Focused on implementing legislation to deter actors from illegal fishing.
• Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) – Supports Norwegian efforts to
prevent illegal fishing.
Species Targeted: Cod and Tuna, other marine wildlife subject to overfishing in Norwegian
waters

30

Pros Cons
Place the burden of proof on the vessels,
which makes enforcement easier and
eliminates potential loopholes for culpability.
Effectiveness heavily depends on the amount
of states participate in the region.
Has the effect of forcing ‘loophole’ fishermen
to obtain bunkering in ports further away
from domestic fishing grounds, resulting in an
increase in operational costs, reducing their
margins and deterring actors from illegal
fishing.
It does not combat IUU fishing head on but
uses economics as a weapon, which can prove
to be unsuccessful given the possibility of the
change in demand for the fish.
The increase in difficulty to present proper
documents and showing the legality of the
fishing can be a successful deterrent.
Legislation may prove to be a successful deterrent as it places more responsibility on fishing
actors and imposes potentially significant financial ramifications if caught.

31

Description: Japan can be considered a world leader in the harvesting and farming of fish. As a
result IUU fishing has plague the Japanese fishing industry with over 40,000 tons of illegally
fished tuna being sold. In order to combat IUU fishing, Japan has decided to follow the regional
fisheries management organizations’ (RFMOs) decision to ban fish imports from countries
identified as undermining regional management regulations. Specifically, Japan banned the
importation of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna from Belize and Honduras, and implemented a law on
frozen tuna which required transporters and importers to report the fishing vessel name, location
where fish were caught, the vessels flag, and information about the catch owner (Scheiber,
Mengerink & Song, 2007). The Japanese government has also been considering the idea of
implementing an “observer program,” where observers are sent to the Japanese tuna fishing
vessels to check the transshipment and landing of tuna catch in order to adequately manage the
problem of “fish laundering” and other IUU fishing activities. Additionally, Japan is also
considering imposing a DNA inspection mechanism, to prevent “fish laundering” (Scheiber,
Mengerink & Song, 2007, p.149).
Actors Involved:
• Japan Government – Attempting to better comply with imposed regional regulations on
illegal fishing and to better deter actors from engaging in illegal, unreported, and
unregulated fishing.
Species Targeted: Bluefin Tuna

32

Pros Cons
Being the biggest consumer of fish from IUU
fishing, it can potentially make the IUU
fishing industry less advantageous.
Has not had planned effect because, despite
trade barriers, illegal fishing by Japanese flag
vessels is still common.
Addresses the problem of “fish laundering.” Russian fishing boats falsify records and take
catches to Japan and South Korea.
Imposes legislation on frozen tuna, which is
often overlooked.
Japan does not have authority from other
states to police foreign vessels
The idea of this Japanese domestic legislation on paper looked like a formidable piece of law that
would help curb IUU fishing in regards to Bluefin Tuna fishing but it simply has not had the
planned deterent effect.

33

Description: Much like other states in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, Columbia is susceptible to
IUU fishing. The two most vulnerable areas in Columbia are Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary
and Gorgona National Natural Park, because both areas have no nearby settlements and are
protected conservation areas. To better combat IUU fishing in Gorgona, Columbia, employed
two patrol vessels with global positioning systems (GPS), very high-frequency devices (VHF),
ultra high-frequency devices (UHF), and a photographic camera (Bigue et al, 2010). Adding law
enforcement presence in the region is meant to deter illegal fishing boats. In both Malpelo and
Gorgona, local authorities have suggested greater collaboration and information sharing with the
Navy, more random searches, better documentation, and higher sanctions for deviant actors. The
belief is that increased intelligence, increased law enforcement presence, and the threat of swift
and severe action will deter offenders.
Actors Involved:
• Columbia Navy – Works in collaboration with local law enforcement to protect marine
wildlife and share intelligence on vessels and illegal fishing practices.
• Local Law Enforcement – Responsible for enforcement of offenders, documentation of
fishing infractions, and patrolling waters.
• Columbian Attorney General – Works with the government to try to implement policy
that will better deter illegal fishing.
• National Maritime Authority (DIMAR) - National Maritime Authority responsible for
implementing government policies on maritime matters.
• The Colombian Institute for Rural Development (INCODER) – Former fishing authority
of Colombia that has past intelligence on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in
Columbia.
Species Targeted: Marine wildlife in Columbian jurisdiction

34

Pros Cons
Local Malpelo fishermen inform Navy of
foreigners. In Gorgona, patrol boats only operate an
average of 140 days a year and 3 hours per
patrol
There are logs on enforcement activities that
can be studied to improve enforcement
mechanisms.
The lack of modern vessels by enforcers makes
it difficult to stop semi-industrial vessels that
have high top speeds
Random searches of vessels can be useful in
finding incriminating evidence of IUU
fishing.
Patrol is ineffective at collecting evidence for
prosecution
There is transparency between the Navy and
personnel in Malpelo and Gorgona.

35

Description: A series of recommendations have been made in Ecuador to stop illegal fishing and
deter actors from engaging in IUU fishing in proximity to the Galapagos Islands. Some of the
suggestions include better screening of vessels and fishermen, quotas, applying International
Maritime Organization (IMO) rules and regulations to foreign and local vessels, and increasing
patrol along the borders of the Galapagos Islands, especially the Galapagos Marine Reserves
(GMR) where many unique maritime species have habitats. In addition, greater documentation
using logbooks, records of vessels, and weekly status reports of fish farmed and vessel activities
will help to regulate fishing activity and discourage IUU fishing. The establishment of continued
law enforcement training and use of contracted private investigators is thought to be effective as
well (Bigue et al, 2010).
Actors Involved:
• Local Law Enforcement and Private Investigators – Entrusted with protecting the
Galapagos Islands marine wildlife and enforcing the law for deviant actors engaging in
illegal fishing.
• Ecuadorian Government – Implementing standards that are well recognized and in
conjunction with set international standards on IUU fishing.
Species Targeted: Native marine wildlife to the Galapagos Islands

36

Pros Cons
Addresses the possibility of fake tourism
boats with hidden agendas to illegally fish
rare marine wildlife.
The costs of implementation are very high.
Follows boats using satellite monitoring
systems to ensure no illegal fishing is taking
place.
There is no actual political or stakeholder will
to implement such policies.
Sniffer dog is a good innovation in the
detection of fish in cargo of unauthorized
vessels.
Addresses the issue of foreign vessels.
This policy may serve as an effective deterrent to IUU fishing, the key will be to get more
funding to train and increase the number of law enforcement personnel.

37

Description: In Timor-Leste, one of the best forms of law enforcement may be considered the
fishermen themselves. Governmental agencies within the state have worked to build a
functioning relationship with local fishermen to improve their fishing experience in exchange for
intelligence on IUU fishing. The government lends fishermen Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
to better enhance their safety on the water and ability to ascertain fishing locations. In exchange,
fishermen use the device to anonymously report IUU fishing in real time to relevant government
agencies through a web-application that picks up signals via satellite (GFETW, 2014). The
application has two buttons: a “911 button” and another button used to report illegal fishing.
When the illegal fishing button is pressed, the system immediately alerts the head of the
Maritime Police and the head of the Fisheries Inspection Department anonymously. The
Fisheries Inspection staff can then see the IUU fishing report displayed on a map and The
Timorese authorities can then decide how they will respond (International Monitoring, Control
and Surveillance (MCS) Network for Fisheries-related Activities, 2012, p. 3).
Actors Involved:
• Maritime Police and Fisheries Inspection Department – Tasked with building a trusting
relationship with local fishing actors and enforcing IUU fishing.
Species Targeted: Marine wildlife in Timor-Leste jurisdiction

38

Pros Cons
Solution in the event of any emergency. Fishermen might not be willing to use GPS or
may not be willing to report illicit activities.
Allows vessel tracking by law enforcement.
When arrested in waters of neighboring
countries, tracking data serves as evidence for
fishing location.
It saves time, fuel, and money for inspection
of vessels.
This is a very good piece of legislation that is innovative and can be extremely useful. Timor-
Leste has an obvious reliance on the fishing industry but does not have the manpower in terms of
law enforcement or financial means to police all of its waters. For this reason it makes sense to
incentivize fishermen to help law enforcement and share intelligence.

39

Description: To combat IUU fishing in Australia, specifically the Australian Fishing Zone
(AFZ), strict domestic legislation has been implemented. One such example of domestic
legislation to prevent IUU fishing is the Fisheries Management Act which targets illegal fishing
offenses committed by Australian commercial fishermen or foreign vessels operating within the
protected territorial waters of Australia (Baird, 2008). Punishments imposed by the Fisheries
Management Act include a maximum of AU $275,000 for fishing in restricted areas with a
license and AU $875,000 for fishing in protected waters or fishing without a license. Monetary
penalties are dependent on the size of the vessel that was deemed to be in breach of domestic
policy (Baird, 2008). Due to the Fisheries Management Act, law enforcement is free to
immediately seize any boat, nets, traps, fish, or other equipment if an actor engages in illegal
fishing. Furthermore any actor that is convicted of an IUU offense will be required to
permanently forfeit their vessel, trap, any equipment used for fishing, the fish on board at the
time of the offense, and the proceeds of the sale of any such fish.
Actors Involved:
• Australian Federal Government – Instituted the Fisheries Management Act to prevent
illegal fishing.
• High Court of Australia – Upheld legal seizure of vessels or fishing equipment even if
owner of vessel or equipment is not a guilty party.
• Local Law Enforcement – Responsible for seizing vessels and equipment of deviant
actors.
• Local Fishing Actors & Foreign Vessels – Engage in IUU fishing and targets of state
level legislation to prevent IUU fishing.
Species Targeted: Patagonian Toothfish

40

Pros Cons
It is an immediate and specific deterrent. Prompt release of arrested vessels and crew
upon the posting of a reasonable bond or
security.
Low recidivism rate among offenders (in
large part due to the lack of equipment and
high monetary penalties).
Practicality issue with the quantity of vessels
seized and how many get away with illegal
fishing.
It applies to all vessels – foreign and
domestic.
Some convictions result in less penalties (i.e.
Indonesian fishermen caught with AU
$10,000 worth of fish but fine was reduced
from AU $275,000 to AU $24,000).
Suspicion is enough for seizure resulting in
less confusion for the officer to stop vessels.
Has proven to be effective legislation as penalties are severe and has resulted in a low recidivism
rate among offenders. This type of domestic legislation that mirrors the Fisheries Management
Act can be applied to the hunting of megafauna and other forms illegal fishing because the
immediate seizure of equipment, such as guns or traps, which are used to commit wildlife crime,
may serve as an invaluable deterrent together with monetary penalties.

41

Description: IUU fishing has been a significant problem in South Africa. To better combat IUU
fishing, South Africa created a Specialized Investigation Unit (SIU) dedicated to gathering
intelligence on and stopping chronic offenders of marine crime. This unit serves a medium where
government agencies can collaborate to prevent illegal fishing. SIU units have also provided
added police presence with the hope their physical presence will deter deviant actors. SIU units
are a collaborative effort from South African Police Service (SAPS), the South African National
Defense Force (SANDF) the Navy and Air Force, the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture
Unit (DJAFU), the Department of Directorate Special Operations (DDSO), and local
municipalities. This partnership has been enhanced through the Prevention of Organized Crime
Act (POCA). This has led to provisions for the investigation and prosecution of money
laundering offenses as well as establishing the origins of proceeds of organized crime, forensic
audits and confiscation of the proceeds related to criminal activity. Additionally South Africa has
created an Environmental Court (Hauck and Kroese, 2006, p.78), which combats corruption by
increasing salaries for fishery control officers, lifestyle auditing of fishing actors, using paid
informants, and creating a 24-hour hotline for anonymous “tip-offs” (Hauck and Kroese, 2006).
Actors Involved:
• South African Police Service (SAPS)
• South African Navy
• South African Air Force
• South African National Defense Force (SANDF)
• South African Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Unit (DJAFU)
• South African Department of Directorate Special Operations (DDSO)
• South African Federal Government
• South African Local Muncipalities and Law Enforcement
Species Targeted: All South African marine wildlife subjected to illegal fishing

42

Pros Cons
The proceeds from forfeitures contributed to
Marine Living Resource Fund (MLRF) give
an incentive to increase funding for
partnerships (approximately $15 million U.S.
dollars from 2002-2004).
Difficulties in increasing resources for the
partnerships to combat marine crimes.
The creation of the Environmental Court
resulted in an increase of convictions for
environmental offenses, including IUU
fishing, from 10% to 75% in its first 18
months.
Difficulties in having politicians make
combating IUU fishing a priority.
This is an effective policy as it has deterred illegal fishing, but it is also costly and may not be
applicable in states with financial constraints and poor governance. This type of policing can be
effective at combatting any type of wildlife crime. There is an increase in the strength and
effectiveness of conservation efforts because of the bonds created between different agencies,
both intergovernmental and nongovernmental.

43

LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES
MEGAFAUNA

44

International level
Description: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) addresses wildlife poaching and trade with regulations to better protect wildlife.
The effectiveness of CITES has been criticized over the years because CITES does not designate
illegal wildlife trade as a crime or prescribe specific sanctions for deviant behavior. Furthermore,
inconsistencies amongst state’s laws make it difficult for CITES to effectively manage illegal
wildlife trade in a universally consistent manner. CITES has four basic requirements that
countries under the treaty must meet. These requirements are: (a) have a scientific authority
which identifies endangered species, (b) enact penalties for illegal wildlife trade, (c) confiscate
illegal specimens, and (d) prohibit the trade with countries who violate CITES regulations
(Zimmerman, 2003). By March of 2002, 50% of states party to CITES have failed to comply
fully with CITES requirements. The lack of commitment by nation leaders demonstrates a lack
of concern for illegal wildlife trade. In addition, illegal wildlife trade is a lucrative criminal act
that has attracted several transnational criminal organizations. For example, the former Soviet
Union has major criminal organizations within the state that traded caviar. Criminal
organizations have made illegal wildlife trade violent. Additionally, there have been reports of
gunfire between poachers and authorities. Moreover, terrorist groups use illegal wildlife
specimens to fund their organizations (Zimmerman, 2003).
Actors Involved: States that are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – Responsible for complying with the terms of CITES.
Species Targeted: All megafauna protected by Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

45

Pros Cons
Regulates wildlife trade. CITES does not mandate sanctions.
Stops trade with countries
that violate treaty.
Lack of resources & proper
implementation.
Oldest international
wildlife treaty.
Officials are subject to bribery.
Overall, CITES fails to provide nations with the necessary resources to enforce wildlife laws.
CITES does not designate illegal wildlife trade as criminal, thus making it seem unimportant.
This attitude can be seen in the failure of states to comply at a high level with CITES.

46

Description: Lemieux and Clarke (2009) found that the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) ban on the international trade in ivory sales was partly successful
in the African states they examined. The ban reversed the decline in the African elephant
populations, which was close to extinction but is now slowly recovering. The effects of the ban
vary among countries depending on their regulated and unregulated markets. They found that
regulated markets protect their elephants while unregulated markets endanger not only their
elephants but also those in neighboring countries. Therefore, regulated markets benefit
conservation but unregulated markets do not. This ban has led the overall numbers of elephants
in Africa to increase but the results among 37 of the countries varied. In some of these countries,
poaching declined sharply but in others poaching rates did not change or sometimes increased.
Actors Involved:
• States party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) –
Expected to comply with the terms of CITES.
• Local African governments – Responsible for the protection of wildlife like elephants.
Species Targeted: Elephants
Pros Cons
Stopped the African elephant decline. Has not benefited every African country.
Poaching declined sharply in some
countries.
Requires funding to implement CITES
recommendations.
Regulated markets benefit conservation. Opened path to unregulated market trading.
This ban has been around for a long time—long enough to stop poaching in some countries. This
shows that legislation has proved to be somewhat successful. CITES and governments can
revisit, update, or expand this ban in order to enforce consequences for wildlife poaching. There
is also a significant need to close unregulated markets that hurt conservation of the elephant.

47

Description: McMurray (2009) explored U.S. efforts on combating wildlife crimes. One way
wildlife crime was addressed within the U.S. was the establishment of the Coalition Against
Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT) which aimed at (1) curbing demand by raising public awareness of
the problem, (2) limiting supply of poached wildlife by building international cross-border law
enforcement capacity, and (3) mobilizing high-level political support by convincing decision
makers to take action. The U.S. State Department appointed Bo Derek to tackle wildlife
trafficking issues by spreading awareness about the consequences of wildlife trafficking,
especially to tourists who are unaware of buying products made from endangered species.
CAWT’s partners such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement
Network (ASEAN-WEN) have helped to facilitate cross-border cooperation and harness
collective law enforcement of its member countries. In one such case ASEAN-WEN helped the
Thai police carry out raids and seizures, which was possible by sharing intelligence about
wildlife trafficking. CAWT and its partners also direct their efforts to strengthening law
enforcement nationally and internationally.
Actors Involved:
● U.S State Department - Raises awareness and shares intelligence on wildlife crime
transnationally.
● Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT) - Lobbies policymakers to enact
legislation for wildlife crime and builds cross-border relationships to fight against
wildlife crime.
● Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN)
- Assists local Asian law enforcement in fight against wildlife trafficking.
Species Targeted: Tigers, elephants, rhinos, marine turtles, leopards, pangolins.

48

Pros Cons
Increases public awareness about animal
poaching.
Does not really tackle wildlife crimes
before they happen—it tackles crime after
the fact.
Organizations work together to inform
law enforcement of any suspected
trafficking.
Inspired the United Nations Crime
Commission to pass U.S sponsored
resolutions on combating wildlife
crimes.
This is a collective effort to combat wildlife crime. Once people are educated about the
extinction and consequences of these animals, demand might decrease and therefore slow down
wildlife trafficking.

49

Regional level
Description: Fleming (2013) interviewed Christie Aldridge, who is an Internet intelligence
adviser at the UK’s National Wildlife Crime Unit to discuss her plan to combat wildlife crime
over the Internet. The Internet has globalized trade and made it easier to buy and sell wild
animals or their parts. Aldridge and her team are trying to identify trends related to specific
species and locations, investigate trade routes and whether they overlap with known crimes
against megafauna, and develop a plan to monitor illegal activity. They are aware of deviant
actors using the internet for their benefit to exploit megafauna and that there are “dark parts” of
the internet which are not accessible to law enforcement and government agencies via search
engines. Therefore they are trying to determine the biggest problems related to wildlife
conservation caused by the Internet, and which species need most attention.
Actors Involved:
• UK’s National Wildlife Crime Unit – Gather intelligence to combat wildlife crime.
Species Targeted: all megafauna
Pros Cons
Tackles online wildlife trading. Can be hard to determine fake or real
wildlife derivatives.
Directs law enforcement efforts to where
they are most needed.
Takes time to determine the biggest
problem areas.
This response strategy focuses on analyzing trends in the illegal wildlife trade via the Internet to
better focus law enforcement and conservation efforts.
.

50

Local level
Description: Martin (2010) writes about using effective law enforcement in Ghana to reduce
elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade. Martin (2010) tracked Ghana’s legislation back to
1901 when a minimum weight for trades in elephant products was allowed for sale and export. In
1961 Ghana’s Wild Animals Preservation Act implemented prohibitions against the killing of
young elephants and female elephants with young. In addition, this legislation also allowed the
government to confiscate elephant tusks that weighed less than 25 pounds. Soon the Wildlife
Conservation Regulations prohibited all hunting and capturing of elephants and required a “game
trophy export permit” to export tusks. In 2004, a system that checked the Wildlife Division’s
patrolling efforts and their monitoring work was introduced and the poaching of large animals
significantly declined as a result. This system increased the work productivity of law
enforcement with such an example being seen in 2008 where the Ghana Police and Wildlife
Division raided designated shops in Ghana’s Art Centre resulting in the seizure of hundreds of
kilos of ivory curios and crocodile skin bags. Shop owners were also arrested as a result of the
raid. This raid served as a major deterrent for this type of wildlife crime.
Actors Involved:
● Ghana Police and Wildlife Division - Responsible for enforcement of wildlife crimes
such as the illegal poaching and trafficking of megafauna.
● Ghana government - Implemented legislation to prevent and deter wildlife crimes against
crocodiles and elephants.
Species Targeted: Elephants, crocodiles.

51

Pros Cons
The raids reduced demand for ivory leading
to a decline in elephant poaching.
Increased and more productive patrolling
efforts have served as a deterrent to illegal
hunting.
Wildlife Division better secured elephant
population and protected habitats.
This response is highly recommended, especially because the idea of having random raids has
proved to deter wildlife crime like poaching of elephants and the trafficking of ivory within
Ghana.

52

Description: Stokes (2010) discusses how the effectiveness of tiger protection efforts using the
MIST (Management Information System) program can be improved. MIST is a computerized
management information system for ranger-based data collection, which is a part of a law
enforcement monitoring (LEM) system. MIST can improve law enforcement effectiveness by
meeting the law enforcement needs of protected areas with a system to manage, analyze and
evaluate data collected by park rangers on threats and law enforcement activities. It provides
information that assesses and evaluates patrol strategies. As a result, the enforcement response is
more strategic, focused and capable of tackling wildlife crimes such as tiger poaching. MIST
records patrol efforts and threat indicators and direct rangers where they are most needed. Data
needs to be entered on time and kept up to date for it to be most effective. This modern
surveillance technique suggests the need for more enforcement staff in the field and budgets for
patrolling. This system is also cost-effective as it is free.
Actors Involved:
● Local law enforcement - Responsible for surveillance and enforcement of deviant
behavior that can harm megafauna such as tigers.
Species Targeted: tigers.
Pros Cons
Improves law enforcement interventions
and enforcement outcomes at local level.
Requires an initial investment of time and
resources.
Evaluates law enforcement efforts in
conserving tigers.
Helps to stop the poaching of tigers at their
source sites.
Although this is a time consuming strategy, this surveillance technique will better direct law
enforcement efforts to help stop the poaching of tigers.

53

Description: Pires & Moreto (2011) studied specific strategies to combat wildlife crimes. The
authors discuss using a combination of increased barriers to poaching and incentivizing locals to
abstain from poaching as an action plan to better protect megafauna. They suggest that wildlife
crime occurs due to opportunistic local actors who have very little income and as a result take
advantage of the large mammals that are close to their homes and sell them for financial gain.
Trade bans regulating the sale of megafauna do not always work for some species and in certain
places where enforcement is weak regulations may serve as a gateway to an unregulated illicit
market. As prices rise for animal products due to increase in demand, trade bans are shown to be
ineffective, because poachers have more incentive to hunt when prices and demand is high. They
suggest using situational crime prevention (SCP) to prevent poaching. SCP is an approach that
targets specific crimes and settings where wildlife is most vulnerable. Its intention is to make
changes in the local environment to better protect wildlife by blocking opportunities for
offending. SCP takes such measures as increasing the risk for offenders by imposing greater
penalties on wildlife crime, greater effort needed for poaching by increasing law enforcement
presence and protection of megafauna, and specific legislation and policy solution for each
individual community to reduce ambiguity over the consequences and enforcement of wildlife
crime. SCP recognizes the possibility that anyone is capable of committing such crimes when
given the opportunity so SCP focuses on implementing solutions that are targeted at a
community-level.
Actors Involved:
• Local Law Enforcement – Responsible for the enforcement of wildlife crime and used as
a legitimate deterrent for poachers with strong presence and adequate enforcement of
deviant behavior.
• State Government – Employ and train law enforcement. Also responsible for enacting
policies that increase the severity of wildlife poaching which may serve as a deterrent and
increase the risk to local actors who may engage in illegal hunting of megafauna.
Species Targeted: tigers, elephants.

54

Pros Cons
Situational crime prevention is effective for
specific crimes it targets.
Would require rangers and local law
enforcement to be readily available to
respond to crime.
Tries to stop poaching before it happens.
Involves locals which make them
stakeholders in this situation.
This approach works to limit the opportunities for committing wildlife crimes. Law enforcement
cannot be everywhere to stop them and therefore this strategy serves to limit the times that
wildlife crimes may happen.

55

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION RESPONSES
FISHERIES

56

Regional level
Description: The Earth Island Institute Mammal Program is a leading international coalition
effort to prevent the killing and harvesting of commercial whales and dolphins. One of the main
tenets of the Earth Island Institute Mammal Program initiative is to raise awareness about the
slaughtering of whales and dolphins in an effort to better to protect their habitats. This is
accomplished by a certification standard by European distributors of canned tuna, which must be
deemed “dolphin friendly”. This is done by ensuring the supply chain from the harvesting of
tuna to distributors was done in a legal manner that takes into consideration wildlife such as
dolphins. Certifications are based on tuna being caught and manufactured with no intentional
chasing, netting, or encirclement of dolphins, no use of drift gill nets to catch tuna, no accidental
killing or serious injury to any dolphins during farming, and no mixing of dolphin-safe and
dolphin-deadly tuna in individual boat wells (European Commission, 2007, pp. 48-49). To
ensure standards are followed a network of 12 staff monitors based in 7 countries around the
world observe operations at tuna canneries, offloading ports, cold storage facilities, onboard
fishing vessels, and transshipment locations to ensure that tuna suppliers are compliant with the
standard and with U.S. legal requirements.
Actors Involved:
• Multiple states including the U.S. – Ensure local actors meet requirements to protect
wildlife.
• Earth Island Institute (Nongovernmental Organizations) – Raise awareness to regional
fisheries management organizations and state governments to help preserve dolphin and
whale habitats while pressuring state to comply with wildlife polices to better protect
marine animals.
Species Targeted: Dolphins, whales, tuna.

57

Pros Cons
Provides an incentive for fishing actors to be
more careful when attempting to farm tuna.
Current staff not be large enough to police the
world.
There is liability on accidents, so there is not
loophole in the rule.
Policing all of the global tuna shipments, but
with a predominant focus on the U.S.
Labeling provides the public with knowledge
of the problem, thus spreading awareness that
potentially leading to increased funding and
participation.
Difficult to prove the killing or harming of a
dolphin in the process of netting.
This conservation effort may prove to be a successful policy as it allows for enforcement against
actors who are negligent or intentionally harm wildlife. The obvious challenge is having enough
enforcement to adequately protect wildlife like dolphins and the potential costs of employing
such a large number of law enforcement to prevent this problem. The response may be applicable
to other endangered marine wildlife and megafauna. If there is 100% liability on killings of an
endangered species, even if it is by accident, it will provide motivation for actors to be more
careful or serve as a deterrent for hunting and farming.

58

Description: Unsustainable fishing practices, including overfishing, have emerged as a
significant problem on the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea. Over 33 million local actors in Malaysia, the
Philippines, and Indonesia, rely on the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea for income because fishing is a
common form of livelihood in this region of Asia. Due to poor governance and enforcement
presence and mechanisms, there has been a significant decline in fishing stocks in the Sulu-
Sulawesi Sea with heavy damage to marine habitats, some of which is not repairable. With this
in mind, DeVantier, Alcala & Wilkinson (2004) suggest several key conservation tactics to
increase the well-being and quantities of marine wildlife while maintaining a level of sustainable
fishing that allows actors to earn adequate income. It is suggested the implementation of
protected areas can play a key role in minimizing future habitat loss and restoring harvested
stocks. In addition, the implementation of effective law enforcement to combat IUU fishing in
marine protected areas can help restore marine biodiversity and fish stocks in this region,
resulting in positive outcomes for fishermen who rely on good fish stocks to earn an income. It
also suggested that the use of monitoring and surveillance equipment will result in better
enforcement outcomes.
Actors Involved:
• State Governments – Have been ineffective in implementing policies that deter illegal
fishing and protect marine wildlife.
• Local Law Enforcement – Need to be better trained to effectively combat illegal fishing.
Species Targeted: All marine wildlife in Sulu-Sulawesi Sea.

59

Pros Cons
Designation of marine areas as protected
conservation areas has little cost in and of
itself.
Better training and the hiring more law
enforcement is expensive especially in
developing states. The ability of law
enforcement to buy and use surveillance
equipment might be limited given the financial
constraints of states involved.
If actors behave in a rational choice manner,
conservation areas offer little deterrence
because of weak enforcement.

60

Description: Unsustainable fishing practices have collapsed fisheries in the Southern Ocean and
led to a multilayer government approach, called Global Adaptive Governance, an initiative
aimed at restoring fish stocks and maintain sustainable fisheries. Global Adaptive Governance
has four components – actors, networks, organizations, and institutions. Actors are the
individuals with the power, social status, or general ability to help innovative policy
recommendations become a reality. The networks are a larger scale community version of the
actors involved, forming a group in which each member can fulfill a role conducive to the goal
of conservation. Forming a legitimate organization is important to show determination to solve
the problem at hand, and bridges the gap between policy and action. And institutional design can
be the difference between a successful and disastrous collaborative effort. (Osterblom & Folke,
2013). All these actors must come together collaboratively for conservation and the prevention of
IUU to be effective. The idea is that with greater compliance and transparency from local actors
to government institutions to regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), fish stocks
may be better protected.
Actors Involved:
• Local Fishing Actors – Responsible for not overfishing and complying with
governmental policies on fishing regulations.
• State Government – Responsible for enacting policy that induces compliance and protects
local marine ecosystems.
Species Targeted: Krill

61

Pros Cons
More actors involved create a stronger
organization.
More actors can also create tense situations
in the case of differing opinions.
Perception of legitimacy by IUU fisherman in the
wake of a multi-partnered RFMO may be enough
to deter further IUU fishing.
Multi-partner organizations are traditionally very effective when roles are identified.

62

Country level
Description: Sweden has adopted an approach where over-catching of fish can be blamed on the
lack of incentives for fishing actors to obey laws and regulations. Sweden contends the IUU
fishing actors act for themselves in an individualistic self-profiting manner that does not take into
account the implications of over fishing or future earnings. In response to overfishing and
declining fish intakes, Swedish fisheries started to set their own quotas and implement other
measures to prevent overfishing. In one fishery, the most frequent trawlers (a type of fishing
vessel) created an agreement with the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) where the fishery
would open later in the year than normal (April) and close after 50 days, and then reopen again
in September until December. Sovereign rights were given to 6 trawlers, in which they could
determine the best way to balance production and conservation. This led to informal meetings
between the trawlers in order to allocate days in which they could use the fishery. In doing this,
the fishery benefited greatly, as the quality of shrimp farmed increased along with the catch rate.
The rights granted to the trawlers however are not easily transferred to others, but an informal
leasing system amongst fisherman allows for the use of the fishery for a set number of days for a
certain price (Eggert & Ulmestrand, 2008).
Actors Involved:
• Local Fish Trawlers – Make informal agreements to use fishery, which results in greater
conservation of marine wildlife like shrimp.
• Institute of Marine Research – Implemented agreement with local trawlers, which has
seemed to benefit marine wildlife.
Species Targeted: Shrimp

63

Pros Cons
Increased efficiency and conservation by
limited access to fishery.
Limited transferability leads to less influence
in the decision making process, potential for a
limited number of trawlers with property
rights to benefit themselves.
More sustainable marine wildlife to be farmed
in the short-term and long-term future.
Seems like a successful policy as it effectively made trawling in the Gullmar Fjord more
efficient, increased catch rate, and quality of shrimp.

64

Description: This report comes from United Nations Volunteers based at the United Nations
Development Programme Fiji Office who seek to better conserve marine wildlife in the Pacific
Ocean. They argue that can be done to educate people on the value of marine resources and how
to manage marine protected areas (MPAs) at the local community level. This includes more
information on the dangers of overfishing and guidelines for farming and harvesting fish in areas
of conservation. In Fiji, effective surveillance and monitoring of illegal fishing by the Regional
Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (RFLP) using GPS satellites to track vessels is thought to have
positive outcomes. Additionally, it is thought that with stricter enforcement of regulations and
penalties for poachers will prevent IUU fishing in areas of conservation. The report also suggests
that marine protected areas should never be open even for special events or leisure (Berrell,
Prasad, & Tavanabola, 2014).
Actors Involved:
• Fijian Government (Federal and Local) – Responsible for overseeing marine wildlife,
marine ecosystems, and protection of conservation areas.
• Local Fiji Law Enforcement – Entrusted with enforcing the law against illegal poachers
who decide to farm fish in protected areas.
• Local United Nations Office – Responsible for raising awareness about an overlooked
issue that is relevant to the Oceania and Fiji.
Species Targeted: All marine wildlife in marine protected areas in Fiji

65

Pros Cons
Empowers the community to help itself. Difficult to find a balance between centralized
decision making and letting each community
make its own decisions because there are so
many communities involved. (over 400
MPAs).
Since legislation is made by the community,
the policies are more widely accepted and
followed.
Local poachers ignore requests and warnings,
therefore, education may not be working.
Literature on IUU fishing is readily available
for the community.
This legislation will only prove as effective as local actors in the community comply with it and
believe in its.

66

Local/City level
Description: In Kanalsi, India, a small rural agricultural village where there is great marine
biodiversity, there has been a movement to conserve marine wildlife through education. Backed
by the PEACE Institute Charitable Fund of New Delhi and the Thames River Trust of the United
Kingdom, a conservation program attempted to educate villagers on the importance of preserving
biodiversity and using resources sustainably in two local rivers, the Thapan and Somb Rivers
(Gupta, 2013). Local communities residing on the river were encouraged to monitor and protect
their river stretches. This program was shown to be successful because, as villager were taught
that any kind of chemical dumping or illegal fishing in the area was against local legislation,
conservation efforts by small groups/individuals started to emerge in the areas in an attempt to
create a more sustainable fishing future. When a survey participant was asked about the saplings
that were recently planted on the river he responded that it would help stabilize the area in the
future (Gupta, 2013). Outside the confines of the local village, it was more difficult to obtain
compliance. This is partly due to the fact that sustainable practices are sometimes more difficult
to implement and, without community pressure to use these practices, efforts to conservation
biodiversity can fall short. For example, in response to the ills of chemical farming, in one
survey, respondents claimed that it was too difficult and expensive to use organic farming
(Gupta, 2013).
Actors Involved:
• Small river-based communities in Kanalsi, India – Responsible for the conservation of
biodiversity and fish in local rivers by educating local actors and abiding by implemented
measures regarding waters and fish.
• Nadi Mitra Mandal (NMM) - Goal is to educate local actors on sustainability and
conservation of biodiversity and marine wildlife.
Species Targeted: Local marine wildlife in Kanalsi, India.

67

Pros Cons
Community-based effort providing education
sets up local communities to remain self-
sustainable after receiving assistance from
outside organizations.
Must convince those who believe it is too
beneficial to illegally fish, or commit
environmental crimes to comply with the
rules. May require a change of their moral
code or community pressure.
This strategy obtained a high rate of compliance and successful outcomes, which indicate further
education on biodiversity and conservation measures may have positive effects if combined with
community pressure.

68

Description: In developing countries, different strategies must be implemented to preserve fish
stocks with consideration given to available resources. One of these strategies is known as the
“livelihoods approach” which seeks to rejuvenate and preserve fish stocks with the
understanding that many people in developing countries are dependent on fish for their daily diet
and as a source of income (Allison & Ellis, 2001, p. 378). The livelihood approach limits fishing
in inland lagoons to when there is bad weather on the open sea, allows for flexible redistribution
of fishing rights among neighboring municipalities according to needs and surpluses (in times of
local scarcity neighboring community-controlled fishing grounds are exchanged for part of the
total fish catch), and switches between targeted species that is being fished to ensure diversity.
Actors Involved:
• Local Fishing Actors – Make their living off the harvesting of fish.
• Local Governments – Entrusted with following preservation mechanisms to make sure
there is an adequate supply of fish to be farmed.
• State Governments – Oversee municipal cooperation and ensure municipalities follow
implemented policies on IUU to preserve fish.
Species Targeted: All fish stocks in developing countries
Pros Cons
Focuses on dependent and even
disenfranchised people who live in poverty and
are reliant on the fishing industry for income.
The imposition and enforcement of these rules
rests mostly on the fishermen themselves.
Proposes legislation on fishing that is fair,
reasonable, and can preserve fishing stocks.
It does not specify how to get people to care
about the issue of IUU fishing.
Focus is on a broad issue of how people make
a living and the problem may be beyond repair

69

Description: Traditionally, in Tanzania, only land areas were protected, but in the 1990’s
Tanzania implemented several, marine protected areas to conserve marine species for the long-
term and help local communities understand the importance of sustainable wildlife use. One such
area was the Zanzibar Islands where, in 1996 the Environmental Management for Sustainable
Development Act was implemented, along with the Menai Bay Conservation Program, to reverse
the trend of inadequate government policy and funds dedicated to marine species. The Menai
Bay Conservation Area Program was funded by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and also
received financial aid from the U.S. and British governments. Its purpose was to improve
enforcement mechanisms and provide alternate sources of income besides illegal fishing. Some
of these enforcement mechanisms included radios for law enforcement, two boats for local
patrolling, and funding for village conservation committees (VCC) to implement their
conservation goals and provide the community with a stronger governance structure. Even with
the help of outside governments and the WWF local villages found it hard still to combat illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and also felt VCCs complicated matters and created
unrealistic goals local communities were not able to achieve (Levine, 2004).
Actors Involved:
• Tanzanian Government – Responsible for newly implemented legislation that conserves
marine wildlife and marine wildlife habitats.
• U.S. and British Government – Gave outside funding to Tanzania to help address marine
wildlife conservation issues the state is facing.
• World Wildlife Foundation – Give financial assistance to help better protect marine
wildlife.
• Village Conservation Committees – Set regulations to help combat illicit activity like
illegal fishing and project goals the community is to attain to help better protect marine
wildlife.
Species Targeted: Marine wildlife in proximity to the Zanzibar Islands of Tanzania.

70

Pros Cons
The use of NGO’s was effective in providing
extra help that the government of Tanzania and
local governments couldn’t afford to provide.
WWF and other nongovernmental
organizations are not permanent solutions
or indefinite source of funds.
The WWF was a more consistent presence and
source of funds than the Tanzania government
leading to better enforcement.
Plan does not account for unique
characteristics amongst fishing villages that
have different levels of tourism,
geographical characteristics, and
infrastructure.
Use of VCC’s allows villagers to enforce their
own waters, empowering residents to protect the
area in which they reside.

71

Description: The conservation of lobsters on the coast of Maine is a century old practice that has
been met with reasonable results. The main way lobster quantities are kept stable is through a
technique known as the “v-notch program”. Its goal is to conserve any large female egg-bearing
lobsters so that they may populate the waters of the coast of Maine with additional lobsters. If a
fisherman comes across a female egg-bearing lobster a v-shaped notch is etched into the lobster
tail, indicating that the farming of that lobster is banned. This conservation program has been
met with local praise as local fishing actors concur that lobster conservation is key to protecting
the future of the lobster farming industry. It is important that all local fishing actors comply with
the program and not farm female egg-bearing lobsters so the community benefits as the whole
from bigger lobster harvests (Acheson & Gardner, 2011).
Actors Involved:
• Local Fishing Actors – Entrusted with the responsibility to abide by the locally coded v-
notch program to ensure better fishing outcomes and conservation of lobster for future
farming.
Species Targeted: Lobsters
Pros Cons
Method that has been proven to work and
induces high rate of actor compliance.
Requires like-minded individuals and less
greed amongst competitors, which could be
a tough environment to foster.
Is a relatively simple and cost-effective solution.
This is a unique and valuable program because it is so cost-effective and produces beneficial
outcomes for both actors and marine wildlife. Conservation effort is heavily reliant on
compliance, which is not always attainable in certain settings.

72

Description: Nielsen & Mathiesen (2003) conducted a research study to determine what ensures
fishers’ compliance with current regulation efforts by a given authority. The key variables tend
to be the fairness of the laws, in a distributive sense, and the morality of the laws. If fishermen
perceive that other competitors are given no advantage by the regulations, then they are more
likely to comply. A fisher will only follow a law if it makes sense based on their personal moral
compass. For example, a fisher is not likely to discard of a dead fish because of the fact that
keeping it will mean they have gone over the total catch allowed (TAC) rate. In this regard, it
makes sense, as the logic of discarding of a fish that can no longer be conserved is not valid.
Other indicator that determines success of compliance with regulations is the swiftness of
enforcement action. For example, if a large black market for undersized lobsters was allowed to
expand, when regulation policy was enacted, it was difficult to shut down that market. Those
fishermen who got in early on the black market continued to make a large profit, which
motivated other fishermen to join in, seeing as no one was stopping competitors from making a
profit through the black market. Other issues are the perceived impracticality of regulation
measures, such as fortnight catch rations that do not account for daily variations in catch (a slow
day versus a really lucrative one). This inconsistency, as “uncaught quotas” cannot be transferred
to the next day, nor can a larger than quota catches be kept, leads to underreporting of catches.
The norms and morals of the other fishermen in the area also play a role in compliance, as the
community’s mentality can “override” the regulations. Finally, the perception of being included
in decision-making, as well as perceived legitimacy in the authority figure making the
regulations, has an impact on compliance (Kuperan & Sutinen, 1998). Lack of communication
between policy makers and the fishermen in the area gives the impression that the policy makers
are out of touch with the fisheries they are regulating and therefore cannot are not qualified to
make decisions on what regulations fishermen have to follow (Raakjær Nielsen & Mathiesen,
2003).

73

Actors Involved:
• Local fishermen – Have a duty to follow state and international law, which is
implemented to best conserve marine wildlife.
• State Governments – Have the responsibility of implementing policy that protects
fisheries and have the duty to enforce penalties on local actors who do not obey the law.
Species Targeted:
• Danish Fisheries – Cod
• All marine wildlife
Pros Cons
Morality is something that can be developed
and taught. If law enforcement appears
legitimate and laws are collaboratively drafted
and agreed upon, illegal fishing may be
prevented.
Changing moral codes can take a long time and
requires a lot of investment to truly engage a
community and convince them to change their
value system.

74

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION RESPONSES
MEGAFAUNA

75

Country level
Description: A study conducted by Balme et al. (2009) assessed the impact of conservation
interventions and the persistence of the leopard population in Phinda Private Game Reserve,
South Africa. It evaluated the effectiveness of CITES regulation, national policy, and community
approaches in protecting leopards. The study prompted the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (EKZNW)
to limit CITES’ hunting permits to 5 per year and evenly distribute them. The even distribution
of permits mitigates the concentration of hunters in a region. CITES’ permits were also restricted
to hunting only adult male leopards. Moreover, the EKZNW provided farmers with destruction
permits. These permits allow farmers to kill leopards who threaten their livestock. However,
farmers started to misuse their destruction permits and sell their hunting rights to poachers. The
misuse of destruction permits prompted the EKZNW to reform their policy. Farmers are now
required to show that the same leopard has cause depredation within a 2-month period.
Furthermore, only the landlord or an EKZNW official may use the permit. Lastly, workshops
were provided for farmers to reduce the risk of livestock attack. The aim of these workshops was
to improve leopard-farmer relationships. The workshops informed farmers on how to properly
corral animals, place guards, change grazing paddocks and dispose of livestock carcasses.
Actors Involved:
• Leopard Poachers
• States that Accept CITES as International Law
• NGO Actors - EKZNW
• Team of researchers
• Local Agriculturalists/Farmers
Species Targeted: Leopards
Pros Cons
Leopard population has increased, in addition to a
decreased death toll and increase in reproduction rate.

Diplomacy_Lab_Final_Report_2014

Diplomacy_Lab_Final_Report_2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Diplomacy_Lab_Final_Report_2014

Similar to Diplomacy_Lab_Final_Report_2014 (20)

Diplomacy_Lab_Final_Report_2014