Blaming the poor for biodiversity loss: a political economic critique of the study of poaching and wildlife trafficking

Abstract

[100 Words]Biodiversity has become a topic of study in a variety of disciplines. Within criminology the study of biodiversity loss is often emphasized in the poaching literature. However, an alternative perspective on the political economy of biodiversity loss exists within criminology. While both approaches to biodiversity provide important information for the discipline of criminology, the implications of those approaches have very different implications for environmental discourse related to poverty and social justice. We suggest that poaching studies be viewed with caution as there is a possibility that those studies can be used to 'blame the poor' for biodiversity loss.3

Mapping the Research Landscape on Poaching: A Decadal Systematic Review

“…Drivers of poaching were also poorly studied in analyzed articles, as more than half of studies did not consider them. Findings indicate that social-economic drivers were the most prevalent ones for poaching in the reviewed studies, which is similar to Lynch et al (2017). We noticed that in our findings, drivers for poaching commonly overlap, indicating the challenge to understand deeper the reasons behind poaching.…”

Uncovering patterns of public perceptions towards biodiversity crime using conservation culturomics

“…It relates to the dominant assumption of Law enforcement authorities that environmental and biodiversity crime is directly linked to the search for illicit profits (e.g., Ayling, 2013 ; Leberatto, 2017 ). Under both conditions, i.e., transient vs. chronic pressures, it seems preferable to adopt a terminology of ‘mechanisms enabling’ biodiversity crime that allows avoiding the ‘blaming of the poor’ for biodiversity loss if criminal activities are decoupled from poverty and social justice issues (Lynch et al, 2017 ).…”

“…The cultural dimensions of the multivalent problem of anti-social behavior and unlawful acts (e.g., Eysenck, 1996 ) in the domain of biodiversity conservation are, however, often neglected. Biodiversity crime, situated at the interface of multiple disciplines, including common Law (e.g., Do Vale, 2015 ; Zhu, 2014 ), environmental and green criminology (e.g., Beirne et al, 2018 ; Brisman, 2020 ; Brisman & South, 2019 ; Rodriguez Goyes & Sollund, 2018 ; Tosun, 2012 ), economics (e.g., Le Gallic, 2008 ; Lynch et al, 2017 ), sociology (e.g., Huebschle, 2017 ) and conservation science (e.g., Cafaro, 2015 ; Maas et al, 2019 ; Solomon et al, 2015 ; Troumbis & Zevgolis, 2020 ), presents interesting conceptual and methodological peculiarities. For instance, in terms of ethical judgments, biodiversity crime is often difficult to grasp, for it offends intrinsic and inherent values of nature (e.g., Diaz et al, 2015 ) that are culturally defined but not ecumenically protected by human Law.…”

Crime, Security, and Illegal Wildlife Trade: Political Ecologies of International Conservation

“…First, there is the argument that illegal wildlife trade is extremely lucrative and funds organized crime and armed groups, therefore it undermines the rule of law and can contribute to destabilization. Second, the illegal wildlife trade is an organized criminal activity, and therefore requires greater levels of law enforcement (Lynch et al 2017;Wyatt et al 2020), including the use of intelligence gathering, informant networks, and more active forms of policing . Third, in areas of armed conflict, conservationists can feel they have no other option (Lombard 2016;Lombard and Tubiana 2020;Marijnen et al 2021;Marijnen and Verweijen 2016).…”