The dark side of nature conventions: A call to end anthropogenic wildlife destruction

Abstract

The world is experiencing an anthropogenic nature crisis, with global warming and catastrophes, for example, wildfires and flooding, causing destruction of living conditions and habitat both for human and nonhuman species. According to WWF’s last living planet index, one million species are risking extinction, leading to a need for a criminology that addresses the multifarious reasons for this situation, which to large degree is lacking. In this article, I apply perspectives from Green Criminology, Environmental Restorative Justice and Species Restorative Justice to argue for the necessity of these to address species loss and animal abuse caused by wildlife trade and hunting. The implementation of two prominent nature conservation conventions, CITES and the Bern convention, are central in the discussion, with Norway as the case, through which it is shown that these fail to provide endangered wildlife with protection.

Introduction

On 14 August 2022, a walrus called Freya was killed in the Oslo fiord. The decision was made by the head of Norway’s fisheries directorate, Frank Bakke-Jensen, and created uproar to Norwegian wildlife management both in Norway and internationally. Freya was a celebrity. She was 5 years old and had visited several countries, including the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Freya had spent the summer in Oslo’s surroundings, drawing a lot of attention from curious people. At times, they came dangerously close and did not keep a safe distance to her, despite repeated warnings from the Norwegian authorities who said that for their own protection, killing her could be the result. For most, Freya was a curious walrus who seemed to enjoy contact with people, even though some of them threw rocks at her or poked her with sticks to attract her attention for a photo. It turned out that the most dangerous animal is the human.

Freya was killed on the last day of a heat wave and the end of the summer holidays. If she had been allowed a few more days, any danger she may have constituted for people would have disappeared – but she was shot in the early hours of that day. Her death was surrounded by secrecy and was compared by the New York Times to a mafia homicide. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) had made many suggestions about alternatives to killing her, for example, to control people or to move her. These alternatives were rejected by the authorities, who found moving her complicated and expensive.

Freya’s tragic destiny forms the background for this article and stands as an example of what, in Norway, is referred to as ‘nature management’. This concept [naturforvaltning] seems neutral, but in reality, management refers to control by means of firearms leading to death for ‘nature’ – for example, individual beings who are often large, endangered carnivores, such as wolf, lynx, wolverine and brown bears. This time, and unnecessarily, it was Freya. As a walrus, Freya was also listed as a vulnerable species globally by the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Our era is referred to as the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2006), which identifies the human species as a force that has changed the planet’s climate, topography and the living conditions in ecosystems for both human and nonhuman species. That the activities of humankind have left such traces on Earth speaks to the destructive capacities of the species but exemplifies also its power and yet may engender hope. If humanity is able to develop tools that can take them to the moon, it should also possess the ability to act in order to prevent or at least remedy the crisis that it has caused on Tellus.

Green Criminology (GC) is an international field within the discipline that has been growing exponentially over the last few decades alongside the nature crisis. The study of wildlife crime, law enforcement and restorative environmental/species justice nonetheless still remains largely overlooked in mainstream criminology. For example, in the Nordic criminology’s 60th seminar in Iceland in May 2022, with the theme Crime and Crisis in the North: Past, present and future, at the British Society of Criminology’s conference in 2022, global warming and the nature crisis were not mentioned in the panels, which overall had anthropocentric approaches, dealing with traditional mainstream criminology themes, for example, drug policies and prisons.

I have two main aims with this article. First, to argue for an expansion of a more holistic, non-anthropocentric criminology and a broader use of the perspectives found in GC. I thus address the challenge raised by Pali et al. (2022) to further and develop Environmental Restorative Justice (ERJ) by discussing how this can be broadened regarding nonhuman animal species, conceptualized as Species Restorative Justice (SRJ). Second, to illustrate the necessity of this, I will offer a critique of the gap between the obligations states assume to protect endangered species through membership in international conventions, specifically CITES ¹ and the Bern ² convention, and how animals actually lack protection despite being encompassed by such conventions, with Norway as an example. My cases are the so-called legal and illegal wildlife trade (WLT/IWT), the large carnivore management in Norway, the implementation and enforcement of the two conventions with a specific focus on CITES, as well as Norway’s rejection of the international whaling moratorium. I offer concrete examples of the conventions’ implementation and thus limitations in Norway with a special focus on animal welfare. After briefly sketching out the methodology that is the basis for this article, I offer an introduction to GC and ERJ for readers who may be unaware of their breadth and theoretical perspectives, and consequently their utility, if not necessity, in the present nature crisis.

Methodological approaches

This article draws on a literature review and policy analysis, but is also based on empirical research that I have conducted for more than 12 years in Norway. ³ This includes data in the form of 39 qualitative interviews with law enforcement agents, such as police, customs inspectors, advisors in the Norwegian Environment Agency (NEA) and border veterinarians, as well as IWT offenders. In addition, I have analysed customs seizure reports from Norway (2007–2020), and examined roughly 350 hundred penal case files and verdicts concerning WLT and wildlife crime (Sollund, 2019; Sollund, 2021a; Sollund, Forthcoming). Concerning the Bern Convention, I have followed closely the Norwegian large carnivore policy for a decade and have undertaken analysis of verdicts from Norwegian courts concerning both the legal and illegal killing of large, endangered carnivores (e.g. Sollund, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021).

What are the perspectives of GC and ERJ?

GC is rooted in critical criminology (e.g. Sollund, 2015), a field conscious of the crimes of the powerful (e.g. White, 2011), the need to engage with social movements (Ellefsen, 2016; Goyes, 2018) and often employing Marxist critiques of capitalism (e.g. Lynch and Stretesky, 2016). Many environmental harms committed around the world are not criminalized. Legally speaking, they are harms, rather than crimes. In addition, often environmental crimes are responded to with administrative sanctions such as fines. These often lack a deterrent effect because they are simply a cost that corporations will pass on to consumers (Faure et al., 2016; Ruggiero and South, 2010). Criminologists ought to engage also with harms that are leniently criminalized or not criminalized because of the weakness of environmental law (Lynch and Stretesky, 2016; Ruggiero and South, 2010). However, generally, criminologists have only focussed on a very limited range of harmful human behaviour that, given the critical effects of humans’ environmentally harmful acts, has proven too limited. A harms perspective is therefore central to green criminological study (South, 2008; Sollund, 2019; White, 2013b), with a critical victimology that includes nonhuman victims of harm (e.g. Nurse and Wyatt, 2020; Spencer and Fitzgerald, 2013; Sollund, 2016).

Traditionally, criminology has also been anthropocentric; however, in 1999, Piers Beirne argued for the inclusion of animal abuse as a legitimate subject of study for criminology because animal abuse is often a breach of law. His challenge has been responded to within GC and ERJ but remains absent in mainstream criminology, and this concerns particularly the harms and crimes committed against freeborn animals who should be protected, not only by animal welfare legislation but also by the Bern Convention and CITES. Norway’s failure to protect endangered species, such as wolves, has been characterized as state-organized crime caused by ideological inertia (Sollund, 2017; Sollund and Goyes, 2021).

In GC, two important expansions of the traditional focus of criminology were thus first, a broader recognition of victims and second, the significance of crimes of the powerful (e.g. Ruggiero and South, 2013, see also ^{White, 2013b} ) – yet neither provided the impetus needed to fully recognize the victimization and exploitation of other-than-human species.

Many examples can illustrate such victimization, as the Bhopal catastrophe in India (Pearce and Tombs, 1989) and the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (Dybing, 2012). In the BP disaster, 11 people were killed in the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and approximately 60,000 barrels of crude oil spilled into the gulf daily (Spencer and Fitzgerald, 2013), causing irreparable damage to the ecosystems. However, for nonhuman species, the disaster had larger effects. Endangered sea turtles, bottlenose dolphins, birds and various fish species, as well as coral reefs, suffered increased mortality, developmental defects or reproductive declines as a result of exposure to the oil. An estimated 600,000–800,000 birds died as a result of the spill, and sea turtles, who had migrated to the Gulf from Mexico, South America and West Africa, died, demonstrating the global scale of a seemingly ‘regional’ or ‘local’ event (White, 2018). Such incidents illustrate the victimization of both humans and nonhumans, and that borders and species divisions do not stop, alter or reduce the harms caused by incidents like this.

Applying the GC and ERJ perspectives

As illustrated above, when the natural environment suffers harm, the victimization is not limited to humans but extends to nonhuman animals and ecosystems. Therefore, sentient nonhuman animals and ecosystems have been acknowledged as victims, and ecosystems have been accorded rights in several national jurisdictions, such as in Bolivia, Ecuador and New Zealand. ⁴ Harms and crimes committed against nonhuman animals, whether intentional or by neglect, whether committed by individuals or corporations, are regarded as breaches of their rights and of species justice (Beirne, 2007). Species justice focuses on ensuring the wellbeing both of species as a whole and of individual animals, who should be shielded from abuse, degradation and torture (White, 2013b). Species justice relates to two other important analytical foci in GC: environmental justice, where the main focus is on differences within human populations and environmental rights, ⁵ and ecological justice, where the main focus is on ‘the environment’ as such, and the aim to conserve and protect ecological wellbeing, for example forests, is seen as intrinsically worthwhile (White, 2013a).

ERJ is also an important component of a green criminological perspective. It recognizes that humans are a destructive force, but they can also be held responsible for repairing and restoring justice for the nonhuman world. For example,

Restorative environmental justice means, (. . .) a massive human-led reforestation of the planet and investment of human resources in seeding those renewed forests with species that have become endangered thanks to human domination. (Braithwaite et al., 2019)

In assessing how environmental, eco- and species justice can be achieved, one should pose questions, such as,

Who are the victims of environmental harm?; Who should have a voice in restorative processes?; Who can speak on behalf of future or past generations and of nature/more-than-human (animals, plants, rivers, land, places)?; How is harm measured, and what account can be made of future harm?; Can irreversible environmental degradation be healed and, if so, how?; Can restorative justice simultaneously safeguard communities and the environment when their interests seemingly diverge and even collide? (Braithwaite et al., 2019: 4)

An important role for GC and ERJ is to adopt a broad victimological approach and to speak on behalf of those (such as nonhuman animals) who cannot themselves raise their voice and claim their rights in a way that humankind understands, either for lack of will, ignorance or neglect. This process involves researching and exposing such harms and proposing ways of improving the conditions of the victims, prevent future harm and target the offenders and social structures responsible for harms. For example, it is reason to ask whether the ambiguity of international nature conventions (Goyes, 2021; Sollund, 2021b), such as CITES and the Bern convention, serve to ‘greenwash’ and ‘welfare wash’ harmful behaviour towards nonhuman life because they disperse an image of offering genuine protection to wildlife which in reality is false. In this way, harm may be legitimized, perpetuated and disguised for the public, who may in turn also come to accept such harm.

In the perspective of restorative justice, while most environmental harms generally are punished leniently, harsher punishment cannot be the only response because punishments, particularly jail sentences, produce more harm. Punishment must, therefore, be differentiated according to the offenders’ power, position and degree of culpability, with the aim of repairing damage and restoring environmental, species- and eco-justice (White, 2022). The responsible actors of Chevron, who over decades have destroyed the ecosystems in Ecuador (Crasson, 2017), should receive harsher punishment than the poor local hunter and they should also be obliged to repair their damage. This aligns with the republican theory of justice, which is ‘premised on the idea that if every act of crime represents damage to liberty and wellbeing, then the system’s task is to promote positive liberty, by rectifying or remedying the damage caused by the crime’ (Braithwaite and Pettit, 1990, as quoted in White, 2022: 33). To this proposition should be added the principle that positive liberty should not only be the privilege of the human species but also that of nonhuman animals. A state that fails to fulfil its obligations to international environmental law and conventions should receive some kind of sanction and be obliged to restore the harms it has caused.

The fulfilment of species justice would entail that nonhuman animals cannot be exploited, abducted from or killed in their natural environments; be used in experiments or for medical purposes; killed as souvenirs, trophies, for clothing or entertainment. Wildlife trade, whether legal or illegal, contributes to anthropogenic destruction as it disrupts ecosystems when entire species may be wiped out as consequence of trade, particularly if they are rare and endemic. Unfortunately, that animals are rare may be the reason for collectors to procure them, irrespective of cost (Courchamp et al., 2006; Sollund, 2019). The negative effect on ecosystems is particularly destructive if the trade and hunting involve keystone species, such as large mammals like tigers, wolves and rhinoceroses (Brisman and South, 2020). Such trade and hunting are regulated and banned through CITES and the Bern convention.

What are CITES and the Bern convention for and how do they work?

A consequence of anthropogenic activities is a loss of nearly 70% of wildlife between 1970 and 2018 (WWF, 2022). WLT/IWT harms and kills millions of animals yearly and, according to the NGO TRAFFIC ⁶ (2016), the illegal dimension of the trade alone is worth between 7 and 23 billion USD a year. CITES has more than a million records a year (CITES, 2021), but what is traded legally is largely underreported (Wyatt, 2021). The trade includes hunting and fishing of animals for food, trophy hunting and the exploitation of animals, such as pangolins, moon bears and tigers. The latter two are, like the rhinoceros and pangolin, valued for their body parts as used in Traditional Chinese/Asian Medicine (TC/AM) (e.g. Van Uhm and Wong, 2019), and animals and animal products are also traded for other purposes and smuggled under cruel conditions in all kinds of luggage around the world (Goyes and Sollund, 2016; Van Uhm, 2016). Elephants are killed for their ivory or trafficked to circuses and zoological gardens (Mac Kenzie and Swails, 2019); birds and their eggs are taken to become part of collections (Sollund, 2019). Live animals are trafficked broadly to be used as domestic ‘pets’ (Van Uhm, 2016; Sollund, 2019); 183 parties (countries) have signed up to CITES, in addition to the European Union (EU) as one party.

In CITES, species are grouped into three appendices according to how threatened they are. Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in these species is allowed only in ‘exceptional’ circumstances, such as for science experiments and abductees who are part of a travelling collection or exhibitions, such as circuses. ⁷ This clearly underlines the anthropocentric underpinning of CITES.

Appendix II-species are not yet threatened with extinction, but trade is controlled to avoid exploitation incompatible with species survival. Appendix III-species are protected in at least one country, which has asked other parties to CITES for assistance in controlling the trade. Parties to the convention must implement the convention through national legislation and the establishment of a management authority. The main problem with CITES is that it regulates rather than bans trade. Most of the animals, whether they are traded legally or illegally, will endure significant suffering, whether reptiles (Warwick, 2014), mammals or birds (Sollund, 2011). While listed species are entitled to some kind of protection, there is also substantial trade in unlisted species that also face threats of extinction (Watters et al., 2022), which is another weakness of CITES.

While CITES aims to protect species from extinction from trade, the Bern convention is broader in its aim to protect species and their habitats. Fifty countries and the EU have signed up to the Convention, which was formulated in 1979 and, for Norway, came into force in 1986. It commits countries to promote national conservation policies, considering the impact of planning and development on the natural environment, promoting education and information on conservation, and coordinating research. ⁸

The Bern convention also works through a system of appendices, like CITES. For example, the Norwegian wolf and brown bear are listed at Appendix II as a strictly protected mammal species. A standing committee monitors the provisions of the Convention and makes recommendations to the parties.

Norway’s implementation of CITES: Species injustice

Norway is foremost a recipient country for WLT and among the 10 top countries in the world when it comes to its amount of WLT (Andersson et al., 2021). CITES has been implemented under a variety of legislation, but has since 2021 been implemented through the Nature Diversity Act (NDA) under the management authority of the NEA, as is the Bern convention. This corresponds to other European countries, particularly within the EU concerning categories of wildlife and wildlife products, as well as the motivations of the offenders (Maher and Sollund, 2016; Van Uhm, 2016). Animals (such as parrots and reptiles) are trafficked as ‘pets’. Collectors and tourists buy items (such as ivory) on the Internet and reptile skin products (e.g. purses, belts), which they bring home illegally (Sollund, 2019). Offenders bring products of TC/AM home or have them sent to them; these can include rhinoceros horn ointment and leopard pills. Businesses, such as clock makers, sports shops and ‘pet’ shops bring in wrist-watch bands of reptile skin, jungle cock necks (for fly fish binding), corals and aquaria fish (Sollund, Forthcoming).

Importantly, a ban against the keeping of exotic reptiles that was in place in Norway between 1975 and 2017 was partly lifted on 15 August 2017, whereupon a positive list of 19 species was introduced. ⁹ Fifteen of the 19 species are either CITES-listed or listed as vulnerable on the IUCN list (Sollund, 2019). These also involve species that are already heavily traded.

The majority of the hundreds of penal case files that were obtained during the first stages of my research (2010–2013) concerned live reptiles, and apparently reptile trafficking continues today (Sollund, 2019, Forthcoming) despite the argument of the authorities that the ban would reduce the illegal reptile trade. The legalization of exotic reptiles is worrying, because there are ample possibilities for laundering illegal, wild caught reptiles into the legal trade, which is a pattern that is found in the reptile trade worldwide (e.g. ^{Lyons and Natusch, 2011;} Sollund, 2019).

An important finding regarding Norway’s implementation of CITES is the practice established by the NEA to kill the animals who are seized at Norwegian borders (Sollund, 2019, 2021). This was done regardless of whether the species were listed on any of the Appendices or on no Appendix (Sollund, 2021). This reflects a paradoxical interpretation of how a species conservation convention should be implemented and enforced (Sollund, 2019, 2021). In 2021, however, an amendment was made to the CITES regulation in Norway that obliges the authorities to consider alternatives to ‘euthanasia’ and to try to rehome/return the animal, in line with CITES’s recommendations (Bowman, 1998). This change applies only for CITES Appendix I-listed species and it is, currently, unknown whether this has altered the practice.

Norway’s implementation of the Bern convention: Species injustice

Like CITES, the Bern Convention offers species protection based on their degree of endangerment, through a system of appendices. Through the implementation of the convention, Norway has a special responsibility for large carnivores that are endangered in Norway; wolves critically; and brown bears, wolverine and lynx are ‘very endangered’ [sterkt truet]. In 2023, the population of these species were 62–65 wolves, ¹⁰ 175 brown bears, 284–403 lynx and 350 wolverines (Rovdata, n.d.). Despite the status of endangerment and counter to its obligations to the Bern Convention and the NDA, Norway is both licencing hunts and authorizing regular quota hunts on these species (Sollund, 2017).

Norway is implementing the Bern Convention through a geographical zone system, by which wolves are allowed to live in only 5% of Norwegian territory. The Supreme Court in Norway has stated that wolves living within the wolf zone shall enjoy particular protection, while wolves wandering outside wolf territory may be shot. Despite this zone system being challenged (Trouwborst et al., 2017), Norway has in recent years started killing wolves also within the wolf zone. It has been established in two court cases, in Oslo Tingrett (district court, 9 July 2021) and in Borgarting lagmannsrett (court of appeal, 6 June 2022), that Norway killed the Letjenna family in the winter 2019–2020 illegally, constituting a breach of the NDA and, consequently, also failing to fulfil the country’s obligations to the Bern Convention. Despite knowing that the appeal case concerning the Letjenna family group was pending in the court system, the Norwegian government continued to kill an increasing number of wolves within the wolf zone. In the winter of 2021–2022, according to Statistics Norway, 38 wolves were killed in licenced hunts, while 25 were killed in the winter of 2022–2023. ¹¹ This killing is not sustainable at species level because the Norwegian wolves suffer from inbreeding (Liberg et al., 2005; Rovdata, n.d.). Any time a wandering wolf appears, a licence to kill him or her is issued.

The wolf hunts are very abusive and in themselves a breach of the Norwegian Wildlife Law and the Animal Welfare Act: wolves are hunted with dogs and by the use of helicopters from which hunters use automatic shotguns. The Appendix IV of the Bern convention ¹² forbids the use of aircraft, so this represents another breach of the convention. The annual winter hunts can proceed for days, as the members of the family groups are killed one by one, with the panic and suffering this implies.

The large carnivore management policy in Norway entails bloody and painful slaughter and reports of people suffering from ecological grief (e.g. Clark, 2020). As an example, in a public protest outside the Norwegian parliament in 2021, appellants were crying as they elaborated about how the annual wolf hunts destroyed their relationship to nature and how they moved to hotels in the city in order to avoid the hunters and the noise of the shooting and the helicopters. When they returned, they experienced the absence of the wolves as emptiness. This suggests that the wolf hunts are not only severe breaches of species justice but also on the environmental rights to a nature rich in biodiversity.

Often, and as in the case of Freya, the authorities justify the killing, calling it ‘euthanasia’, ‘necessary for animal welfare reasons’. This is a hollow argument since a healthy animal was killed and consequently was not in need of any ‘mercy killing’. What she needed, but was not offered, was protection from humans. Whether the killing of endangered species is legal or illegal, it entails similar suffering for the victims. Animal harm is evident in Norway’s implementation of the Bern Convention.

Norway’s lack of compliance to the International Whaling Commission: Species injustice

Another important international agreement is overseen by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which decided in 1982 to introduce a moratorium on commercial hunting of all whale species (Rueness et al., 2019). The Minke whale was then listed on Appendix I of CITES. Norway objected to the moratorium and has since conducted commercial hunting of the species. Norway, Iceland and Japan are the only countries in the world that have ignored the moratorium; Japan withdrew from the IWC in 2019. Norway is exporting whale products from the annual quota of 1278 Minke whales to non-CITES members only because whales are listed on Appendix I; in addition, Norway must produce a risk assessment report – a non-detriment finding – where the species’ vulnerability is considered in relation to how well it is managed (Rueness et al., 2019). One report was produced in 2019, but it underlines several uncertainties that makes it impossible to give a reliable assessment: ‘(I) Concerning survey and monitoring methods, (II) Concerning fundamental data gaps in the population biology of Minke whales, and (III) Concerning environmental changes’ (Rueness et al., 2019: 7). Despite this, Norway continues the whale hunts.

The Cetaceans includes over 80 known species of whales, dolphins and porpoises. Such animals are highly intelligent, complex, social beings (Simmonds, 2006) and undoubtedly, this contributes to their suffering when they are targeted by hunters for slow and painful deaths. For example, during the hunting of Minke whales in West Greenland in 2002, no individual whale died immediately; the average time it took to die was 16 minutes, while five took 300 minutes to die (N = 131) (Simmonds, 2006: 114). By ignoring the whaling moratorium and continuing the commercial hunting of Minke whales, Norwegian authorities also display an arrogant attitude to nature conservation and animal rights. As research progresses about the cognitive and social abilities of Cetaceans, and as the suffering of whales who are harpooned is gradually revealed, hunting these intelligent species should be banned. It is clear that Norway complies with CITES in a paradoxical way and also breaches the Bern Convention, as well as the IWC moratorium and hence CITES.

The lack of animal rights in nature conventions

The way in which Norway implements international nature conventions aiming to protect species from extinction means that individual animals lack protection. This questions the existence of animal rights and individual protection in CITES and the Bern Convention more broadly.

CITES is a trade regulation; its goal is to preserve species from extinction because species are regarded as natural resources of value to humans. CITES has been accused of not preventing animal abuse in WLT and for having little concern for individual animal suffering (Goyes and Sollund, 2016; Arribas, 2016). For example, in the biannual trade reports that countries should submit to CITES, there are no requirements for reporting about how the welfare of animals in trade is/was ensured (Arribas, 2016).

CITES has, nonetheless, been praised for being one among several nature conservation conventions that actually does formulate a principle that wild (freeborn) animals who are subject to trade should receive welfare protection (Bowman, 1998; Harrop, 1997). There is a large risk that this is merely lip service to animal rights organizations and welfare washing, through which it appears like precautions are taken to prevent animal abuse, but in reality this is not the case. Animals are abducted forcefully from their habitats – and it is always by force; they do not come voluntarily. They are torn away from their family groups and flocks; they are packed in cardboard boxes or cages and transported long distances, and then live what remains of their lives in captivity. This begs the following questions: Is there any way this can be done without producing fear, stress, frustration, injuries, hunger and starvation? Or, when animals are attacked by means of weapons, can this be done without abuse? ^{Bowman (1998)} mentions incidents involving appalling numbers of fatalities in shipments of African grey parrots from African countries to Europe. Figures from the British Ministry of Agriculture showed 19,297 birds were dead on arrival and 83,478 died in quarantine (Bowman, 1998). The species is now listed on Appendix I.

While Harrop (1997) finds that CITES is concerned with the welfare of the ‘animal resources’, a study into the philosophical underpinnings of both CITES and the Bern Convention emphasizes their anthropocentrism (Goyes, 2021). The instrumentalist view of nature is partly to blame for this, which entails that while there are several welfare provisions in CITES, they are not fulfilled (Bowman, 1998). The exploitation of animals in trade continues with an increasing number of species being listed in CITES, yet the trade of millions of animals continues. This has led to an unsustainable exploitation at species level and consequently massive animal abuse at the individual level. That CITES incorporates both animal welfare and conservation (Bowman, 1998) is refuted by the increasing number of species that are listed on CITES and the cruel methods used to capture animals that are subject to little, if any, control. In sum, CITES neither prevents extinction nor protects individual nonhuman animals from harm.

That such animal abuse can proceed is partly due to the sovereignty of states in determining how they comply with international nature conventions, such as CITES and the Bern Convention (Goyes, 2021; Sollund, 2021b; Trouwborst et al., 2017).

While CITES sets forth in the preamble that fauna and flora shall be protected for aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic reasons, in the Bern Convention, intrinsic value is added in its preamble to the other values coinciding with those listed in CITES. These values centre on anthropocentric interest, which outweigh the individual intrinsic value of each animal. For a human generational perspective, it may be of importance that wolves survive, but not that one individual wolf is allowed to live until she dies of natural causes. For the wolf families, on the contrary, it matters.

Is SRJ possible?

I have now showed the ways in which the conventions are implemented and enforced in Norway, and revealed that even though they were established to protect wildlife from extinction, these still imply a severe lack of species justice and also environmental justice, through the acceptance of depletion of ecosystems caused by abductions and killing of wildlife. The question remains, if such injustice can be restored? Returning to Braithwaite’s questions above, I suggest some answers: The victims are the animals, and they should have a say. Because they cannot speak for themselves, criminologists should join forces with animal rights organizations and nature conservation NGOs and speak for them, in line with a critical activist criminology (Sollund, 2015; Goyes, 2016). ERJ and SRJ must embody a robust politics of resistance to ecocide (Pali et al., 2022: viii). We should also make suggestions for restorative processes, such as the construction of nature reserves where animals are completely protected, not like in Norway, where hunting is allowed even in national parks and in the limited zones where predators should enjoy particular protection. Harm cannot only be measured at species level; individual rights and intrinsic value must be taken into consideration because each animal has a life to live and a role to play.

For the individuals who are killed as part of the enforcement of CITES or ‘nature management’, justice can never be restored. Therefore, to ensure non-occurrence or recurrence of harm, new relational and ethical systems that prevent future harm for present and future nonhumans and humans, must be established (Pali et al., 2022: 4). To start with, Norway could follow examples, for example, from Colombia and Brazil, where efforts are made to rehabilitate victims of trafficking from injuries and repatriate them to their natural habitats (Sollund, 2019; Sollund and Runhovde, 2020). When such repatriation is successful, species justice can be restored partially, although individuals may still suffer from traumas and from being forcefully separated from their family groups and partners. Many species are monogamous.

That attempts shall be made only to save CITES Appendix I-species points to another problem of nature conservation conventions, the speciesist hierarchy. Individual rights and each animal’s intrinsic value are not considered, as in the case of Freya. They are regarded merely as ‘specimens’ representing the species, rather than as individuals with interests, regardless of species affiliation. The goal of nature conservation conventions, such as CITES and the Bern Convention, may, nonetheless, be claimed to be broader than rules set down in animal welfare legislation, which concerns individuals. This points to a clash between nature conservation concerned (only) with biodiversity and species survival, and the animal rights movement with concern for individual rights (Svärd, 2008).

Tiny, systemic changes may be a development in the right direction; however, a warning must be made against cosmetic changes of minor importance, which only serve to green/welfare wash. For example, with the change in the CITES regulation in Norway in 2021 for CITES Appendix I-species – that Norway rather than killing these trafficking victims shall attempt to rehome them – a step was taken in the right direction. For the individual victims, however, whether or not they pertain to an endangered species is of no concern. To restore justice properly also for CITES Appendix II, CITES Appendix III and non-CITES-listed victims, no animal victims of trade should be killed and rescue and rehabilitation centres should be a requirement in all countries. This would be a step towards animal rights, as they are defined, for example, in the UNESCO declaration of animal rights from 1978, ¹³ where it is stated in article 1, that, all animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence, and in article 4, that, all wild animals have the right to liberty in their natural environment, whether land, air or water, and should be allowed to procreate.

To put an end to the trade in freeborn animals would be the first step to restore eco-justice and species justice, by stopping the legitimation of WLT CITES provides in its current form. This is important because as a trade regulation, it encourages the WLT in regarding animals as resources rather than as individuals with rights. A ban would imply an end to the extractivist ideologies that harm nature and jeopardize eco-justice and species justice, as well as environmental justice and intergenerational equity (Lynch et al., 2015; Pali et al., 2022; White, 2013b, 2022). With a ban against WLT, processes could be started that could enhance species and eco-justice in the future, which would benefit humans and nonhumans alike. While WLT and hunting have capitalist, colonial roots, bans and restrictions against WLT and hunting have been accused of being ethnocentric and failing to take into consideration the traditional rights of local people (Duffy, 2014; Muboko, 2021; Sollund and Runhovde, 2020). The increased pressure on, and the dramatic reduction of, wildlife (WWF, 2022), with, for example, a 94% drop in biodiversity in Latin America and the Caribbean since 1970, demand nonetheless dramatic responses and fundamental changes. The intrinsic value of animals should be incorporated in CITES, which should be converted from a trade convention to a genuine conservation convention, which would entail protection both at species and individual level, protecting individuals from trade, whether listed in the existing appendices or not (Sollund, 2022). To promote not only species justice and eco justice, economic resources should be funnelled through (a restructured) CITES secretariat from rich countries to biodiverse countries and organizations that genuinely protect the natural environment and promote species justice, ensuring also a non-discriminatory mechanism for environmental justice (Sollund, 2022). This could provide justice for future generations of nonhuman animals and humans. A ban is easier to enforce than the existing appendix and permission system (Sollund, 2019).

The proposal of an added protocol to the UNOTC also concerns CITES and includes an amendment to add public health and animal health perspectives into decision making. Included in the proposal for the amended text is that: ‘a Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, cruel treatment, and risk to human or animal health’. ¹⁴ This wording is incompatible with what goes on during capturing, abducting and transporting an animal, whether according to provisions or not. The amendment is decorative, more than promising real change and species restoration and justice. Any change to CITES must be radical and should altogether ban WLT and ensure wildlife protection, rather than exploitation.

No justice is done to the whales who were harpooned to death and their species that were almost driven to extinction. When a being is dead, there is a finality to this and no future action can repair the injustice done to him or her in the past, not even draconian sentences or military operations. At species level, however, justice can be restored by genuinely protecting the wildlife habitats from future harm. International nature conventions should be so formulated that they strictly forbid the killing of, and trade in, freeborn animals, and hunting them should be allowed only for Indigenous groups who depend entirely on this for their own subsistence, who respect the individuals they kill and do not hunt in an unsustainable manner that threatens species survival. This would entail a proper differentiation in enforcement (White, 2022).

The Bern convention is better formulated than CITES; however, the lack of reprimand from the Bern convention when Norway keeps stretching the boundaries for their discretion in the (mis)interpretation of how the Convention may be implemented (Trouwborst et al., 2017), and thus Norway’s failure to comply, undermines the value of this convention significantly. It remains words on paper, rather than an efficient tool in the protection of wildlife and their habitats.

In regard to what NGOs in Norway refer to as ‘rifle management’ and the destiny of Freya, a fundraising effort was initiated to raise a statue of her that will forever remind us of the brutality of the way in which Norway treats its wildlife. This cannot compensate for all the years of life she lost.

Conclusion

GC, ERJ and SRJ are essential fields of criminology in the current nature crisis. They address environmental harms broadly; the ways in which these are regulated, banned and enforced, point to strengths and weaknesses of regulations and enforcement and endorse a broad, holistic view on humans’ relationship to nature, nature protection, victimization, justice and rights. This includes recognizing the sentience and interests of freeborn animals and respecting that, they have rights to live their lives, free from human inflicted abuse. GC-perspectives are innovative, theoretically and empirically, and should be employed by criminologists because crimes and harms against wildlife persist despite international conventions: there is a lack of literature addressing wildlife rights in international conventions and how they suffer from the ways in which these conventions are implemented and enforced.

There is need for more studies of the role these conventions themselves play in the perpetuation of these crimes. ERJ and SRJ are essential in this endeavour with their ‘ethos and set of values and practices that respond to environmental harm through focusing on healing the harm, repairing relationships, deep listening, participation of everyone involved, and ensuring accountability for harm caused in ways that prevent reoccurrence’ (Pali et al., 2022: xi).

The underlying, anthropocentric premise of all WLT and wildlife conservation must be addressed. Wildlife should foremost be protected for their own sake, not for the sake of humans. Whether legal or illegal, WLT remains exploitative, and the animal abuse inherent in the trade will proceed as long as anthropocentrism governs the politics in this area and the enforcement of international environmental law remains muddled, due to the many opportunities for laundering, corruption and so on. CITES and the Bern Convention serve to greenwash and welfare wash the harms and crimes committed against animals in the name of conservation.

In the short term, the Bern secretariat must respond to evident breaches of the convention because accepting such breaches serves to further undermine the intention of the convention, which should include SRJ with a genuine protection of wildlife species and their habitats. CITES should likewise react when states, such as Norway, enforce the convention in a paradoxical manner. Importantly, a remodelling of the conventions is sorely needed which incorporates species justice and genuine individual protection, rather than limited protection contingent on the danger a species faces of extinction.