Conservation and crime convergence? Situating the 2018 London Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference

The 2018 London Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) Conference was the fourth and biggest meeting on IWT convened at the initiative of the UK Government. Using a collaborative event ethnography, we examine the Conference as a site where key actors defined the problem of IWT as one of serious crime that needs to be addressed as such. We ask (a) how was IWT framed as serious crime, (b) how was this framing mobilized to promote particular policy responses, and (c) how did the framing and suggested responses reflect the privileging of elite voices? Answering these questions demonstrates the expanding ways in which thinking related to crime and policing are an increasingly forceful dynamic shaping conservation-related policy at the global level. We argue that the conservation-crime convergence on display at the 2018 London IWT Conference is characteristic of a conservation policy landscape that increasingly promotes and privileges responses to IWT that are based on legal and judicial reform, criminal investigations, intelligence gathering, and law enforcement technologies. Marginalized are those voices that seek to address the underlying drivers of IWT by promoting solutions rooted in sustainable livelihoods in source countries and global demand reduction. We suggest that political ecology of conservation and environmental crime would benefit from greater engagement with critical criminology, a discipline that critically interrogates the uneven power dynamics that shape ideas of crime, criminality, how they are politicized, and how they frame policy decisions. This would add further conceptual rigor to political ecological work that deconstructs conservation and environmental crime

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

Concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences. It is important to engage critically with the militarisation of conservation, including identifying and reflecting on the problems it produces for wildlife, for people living with wildlife and for those tasked with implementing militarised strategies. This Perspectives piece is a first step towards synthesising the main themes in emerging critiques of militarised conservation. We identify five major themes: first, the importance of understanding how poaching is defined; second, understanding the ways that local communities experience militarised conservation; third, the experiences of rangers; fourth, how the militarisation of conservation can contribute to violence where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and finally how it fits in with and reflects wider political economic dynamics. Ultimately, we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and lead to poor conservation outcomes in the long run

Law enforcement technologies and the government of conservation from international conferences to Indonesian protected areas

Places dedicated to the protection of wildlife have not escaped the spread of monitoring and surveillance technologies. Systems enabling the collection and analysis of data to support the enforcement of conservation regulations have become commonplace in protected areas over the last ten years. Yet the influence these technologies have on the processes of government of protected areas and vice versa have been relatively little analysed and documented. This thesis explores these relationships. I adopted a qualitative multi-sited approach to follow conservation technologies from the non-governmental organisations and international conferences where they are designed and promoted to some of the protected areas and conservation organisations where they are used in North and Eastern Sumatra, Indonesia. This research highlights three important dimensions of the relationship between surveillance technologies and the government of protected areas. Firstly, I analyse the relationships between international non-governmental organisations, donors and states which structure the mainstream conservation sector and the government of protected areas. I argue that these relationships shape the choice of hardware and software deployed for conservation in biodiversity-rich regions. Secondly, I found that, through the tasks associated with their use and the enhanced staff oversight they enable, surveillance technologies affect the work of field conservation staff. Thirdly, I focus how what goes on in protected areas is framed and documented through surveillance technologies. I show that this knowledge feeds into both technocratic and policing-inspired approaches to protected areas management. Finally, I suggest that some of the ways in which these systems are currently used present under-acknowledged risks for in-situ conservation of endangered wildlife

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

Concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences. It is important to engage critically with the militarisation of conservation, including identifying and reflecting on the problems it produces for wildlife, for people living with wildlife and for those tasked with implementing militarised strategies. This Perspectives piece is a first step towards synthesising the main themes in emerging critiques of militarised conservation. We identify five major themes: first, the importance of understanding how poaching is defined; second, understanding the ways that local communities experience militarised conservation; third, the experiences of rangers; fourth, how the militarisation of conservation can contribute to violence where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and finally how it fits in with and reflects wider political economic dynamics. Ultimately, we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and lead to poor conservation outcomes in the long run