The Wildlife Justice Commission published a new report examining whether wildlife trafficking is treated with the seriousness it deserves in national legal systems.
The report provides an assessment of how the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) has been incorporated into domestic legislation, and how effectively it is being implemented to tackle wildlife trafficking. Drawing on research from 19 countries most affected by the rhino horn trafficking supply chain, it analyses the criminalisation and penalisation of wildlife offences, and how key UNTOC provisions have been incorporated into law and implemented in practice. Through 10 rhino horn trafficking cases, the report also illustrates how enforcement and sentencing play out in practice, highlighting both best practices and challenges.
The UNTOC framework
The UNTOC provides a legal framework for international cooperation to combat organised crime, including measures against money laundering and corruption, confiscation of criminal proceeds, mutual legal assistance, joint investigations, and the use of special investigative techniques such as controlled deliveries and undercover operations. Its effectiveness in tackling wildlife crime and other environmental offences, however, depends on States incorporating its provisions into national law and enforcing them robustly.
Key findings
The report identifies best practices and gaps in how the Convention has been incorporated into national legislation and implemented in practice in the 19 countries most affected in the rhino horn trafficking supply chain. The research focused on this supply chain as it is one of the most recognised and well documented wildlife trafficking supply chains, and is emblematic of serious, transnational wildlife crimes within the scope of the UNTOC. Many of the jurisdictions affected by rhino horn trafficking updated their legislation in the last 10-15 years in response to the rhino poaching crisis and attention it gardened. The information available therefore allows lessons to be drawn on best practices and challenges, which are relevant to not only the rhino horn supply chain but also the broader issue of wildlife trafficking and crimes that affect the environment. Moreover, it is hoped that findings will inform multilateral policy discussions on preventing and combating serious forms of these crimes.
- Criminalisation: The research suggests a high level of harmonisation across the 19 jurisdictions in criminalising major wildlife offence categories and identified minor gaps for the criminalisation of captive breeding, processing, and attempts to commit an offence, which could be due to these activities receiving less recognition as areas for potential criminal conduct.
- Penalisation: Significant variation in in the maximum terms of imprisonment (from 6 months up to life imprisonment) and fines across jurisdictions, with three jurisdictions failing to meet UNTOC’s “serious crime” threshold (conduct constituting an offence punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious penalty). These jurisdictions therefore cannot use UNTOC as a legal basis for investigating and prosecuting transnational, organised wildlife crimes.
- Incorporation of key UNTOC provisions in domestic law: Almost half of the jurisdictions studied do not appear to explicitly authorise the use of special investigative techniques in their legislation, creating uncertainty and inconsistent application of these tools in wildlife trafficking cases. All of the 19 jurisdictions recognise wildlife offences as predicate offences for money laundering, with varied legislative approaches across the group.
- Implementing the law: Financial investigations and asset seizures appear underused in wildlife trafficking cases, pointing to a potential gap in law enforcement efforts. There are increasing examples of joint investigations at the national, bilateral and multilateral levels, but evidence on the ground suggests that there is still more to be done.
- Sentencing: Evidence from case law reveals disparities, with some high-level offenders receiving comparatively low penalties (including fines substituting for custodial sentences), failing to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, and lower-level actors facing harsher sanctions.
Comparison of maximum imprisonment terms for wildlife trafficking offences involving CITES Appendix I species across 19 jurisdictions in the rhino horn supply chain.
Challenges
The analysis shows that while considerable progress has been made in these 19 countries in criminalising wildlife offences, gaps remain in legislation, enforcement, sentencing, and capacity to address high-level traffickers and organised networks operating across borders.
Systemic challenges also persist, including the limited species coverage of CITES, the absence of a universal definition of wildlife crime at the international level, the absence of a comprehensive list of offences to criminalise, and the lack of explicit reference to wildlife or environmental crime in the UNTOC.
Key recommendations
Building on these findings, the WJC proposes targeted recommendations to strengthen global responses to wildlife trafficking:
- Strengthen domestic legislation, ensuring full incorporation of key UNTOC provisions and harmonisation.
- Enhance the implementation and practical use of UNTOC mechanisms in wildlife trafficking cases.
- Ensure proportionate and effective sentencing, especially the consistent imposition of strong custodial penalties on high-level traffickers to create meaningful deterrence.
- Provide technical assistance to the judiciary to improve adjudication of wildlife crime cases.
Looking ahead
This report reflects both the progress made and the challenges ahead in ensuring wildlife trafficking is treated as the serious transnational crime it is. Its findings are a call to action for sustained strategic enforcement, international cooperation, and investment in the tools and partnerships proven effective in disrupting organised crime.
In this regard, the ongoing work of the open-ended intergovernmental expert group on crimes that affect the environment — established to identify gaps in the international legal framework and consider possible responses under the UNTOC — provides a timely platform to consolidate efforts and strengthen global responses to wildlife and environmental crime.
