Wildlife crime is an increasing problem worldwide. Based on empirical research, we examine how the criminal justice systems of Brazil, Colombia, Uganda and Norway perceive and respond to such crime, with Norway as the main case study and basis for comparison. While the general assumption is that Northern countries are more ‘developed’ in their response to environmental problems, we argue that Norway, despite its economic resources and international profile as a supporter of environmental protection, is failing to confront illegal trade in—and protection of—endangered species nationally. We propose that these Southern countries have developed more tools in terms of legislation, enforcement, awareness and wildlife protection and that Northern countries have expectations regarding conservation in Southern countries that they themselves neglect.

Uganda is repeatedly implicated in the illegal ivory trade as a transit territory for ivory destined for Asia. Interviews with law enforcement officers reveal that the size of seizures and means of concealment and transportation are varied, showing diversity in the trade's level of organization and sophistication. Arguably, considerable processing takes place within Uganda in terms of stockpiling, repacking and organization of exports but investigations rarely lead to prosecution and conviction of those responsible. Findings demonstrate the intricate role and responsibility of transit countries and illustrate how the transnational ivory trade operates locally.

No abstract

The article considers the level of professionalism in police investigations of illegal wildlife trade in Norway by identifying factors that influence the decision-making of investigators and prosecutors. It argues that with a lack of achievement targets, weak management of environmental crime investigation, and national laws that prevent the regulation of domestic trade in species covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, investigations become compromised. Inconsistent crime recording impedes the production of reliable statistics on the extent and distribution of violations, which likely has a negative effect on decisions to prioritize such cases. Many investigations result in fines, conditional discharges, or dismissals based on insufficient evidence or lack of prosecutorial capacity. However, the variations in the sample prevent reaching generally applicable conclusions about the overall state of investigations. Arguably, a lack of direction at the policy level leaves investigations vulnerable to systemic weaknesses, as they are largely dependent on the dedication of individual officers and local leaders.

Abstract'War' has become a common model and metaphor for biodiversity conservation in Africa. By discussing the specific challenges of wildlife crime enforcement in Uganda, this article challenges the 'war on wildlife crime' discourse. It concludes that in the context of Uganda, the discourse is profoundly unhelpful because of a lack of alignment between the problems highlighted by Ugandan law enforcement officers interviewed and the solutions typically favoured in the 'wars on crime'. Most wildlife crimes are subsistence-driven and interviewees' requests are for basic equipment and conventional capacity building. Findings demonstrate that the language of war, militarization and securitization should be used with caution as it risks constructing an image of wildlife crime that is misleading-and one that prevents responses that are effective in the long term.