Mind the Gap! Decoupling Between Policy and Practice in the Policing of Illegal Wildlife Trade

• Date: 01 March 2022
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20967953
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20967953

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(4) 369 –388

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20967953

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Mind the Gap! Decoupling

Between Policy and Practice

in the Policing of Illegal

Wildlife Trade

Siv Rebekka Runhovde1

Abstract

Despite numerous promises and pledges at national and international levels to

confront what many acknowledge as a crisis, illegal trade in wild plants and animals

continues to grow and diversify. Empirical research conducted in Norway and

Uganda from 2013 to 2015 indicates that despite the different circumstances in

which law enforcement operates in the two countries, policing agents face a number

of comparable challenges. Drawing on institutional theory the paper argues that

decoupling, that is, gaps between official policies and daily work activities within the

policing organizations, compromises enforcement in both countries. Challenges stem

from conflicting demands, poor resources and want of guidelines that oblige officers

to prioritize the control of illegal wildlife trade in practice.

Keywords

decoupling, illegal wildlife trade, policing, transnational crime, institutional theory

Introduction

Illegal wildlife trade (IWT)1 is a form of serious crime that takes place across the

globe. Extensive deliberations continue, and millions are invested in projects to con-

front IWT successfully and sustainably. In recent years, nation states have developed

a greater level of interest in responding to environmental threats partly due to their

impact upon national and international economic interests (White, 2011) and in the

last decade, there has been increased emphasis on law enforcement agencies to stop

crimes against wildlife (see e.g., Moreto, 2015; White, 2016). Organizations like

INTERPOL and a number of United Nations bodies have developed million-dollar

1The Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, Norway

Corresponding Author:

Siv Rebekka Runhovde, The Norwegian Police University College, Slemdalsveien 5, Oslo 0369, Norway.

Email: siv.runhovde@phs.no

967953IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20967953International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyRunhovde

research-article2020

370 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 66(4)

global programs to tackle the problem. Celebrities, politicians, and even royalty have

joined the cause, garnering increased awareness, forming new organizations and foun-

dations to generate funding and bring together key actors. Several high-level summits

have been held to address the scourge of wildlife crime, invariably concluding with a

“declaration,” “pledge,” “accord” or similar proclamation about the latest integrated

global response. Success however, has been limited. As noted by Gosling (2018):

Despite some isolated but often disputed signs of hope, the illegal trade in plants and

animals continues to grow and diversify. Networks of groups and individuals, working

loosely together across continents, kill, process, smuggle, and sell wildlife, primarily

driven by the motive of illicit financial gain.

With the advent of fields such as “eco-global criminology” (White, 2011), “environ-

mental criminology” (White, 2008), “conservation criminology” (Gibbs et al., 2010)

and “green criminology” in particular (Beirne & South, 2007; Brisman, 2014; Sollund,

2008; South, 2014; White & Heckenberg, 2014), environmental crime is receiving

attention across academic disciplines. With several contributions focusing specifically

on crimes against wildlife, the volume of scientific literature on this issue has grown

significantly (see e.g. Ngoc & Wyatt, 2013; Sollund, 2015; van Uhm, 2015, 2016;

Wyatt, 2009, 2013). Considerable research indicates that the lack of success in tackling

wildlife crime stems from existing wildlife law regimes not working in their practical

implementation and that the enforcement of wildlife crime suffers as a result (Nurse,

2012, 2015; Wellsmith, 2011). Across jurisdictions, problems identified pertain to i.a. a

lack of resources, lack of police priority and inconsistency in policing approaches

(Nurse, 2015, p. 112). A fundamental problem highlighted by Han and Nelen (2017) is

that global and government-level wildlife protection policies or activities are not imple-

mented by the law enforcement authorities that tackle wildlife smuggling in the field.

Some customs administrations, while giving the appearance of conformity and compli-

ance, actually implemented no substantive change in their daily practices and tackled

wildlife smuggling purely in a symbolic manner (Han & Nelen, 2017). By building on

previous analyses of counter-IWT enforcement in two separate jurisdictions; Norway

and Uganda (see Runhovde 2015, 2016, 2017a, 2017b), in this article I explore whether

enforcement officers in the two countries are facing comparable challenges and to what

extent the lack of success in curbing illegal trade may stem from gaps between policy

and practice, applying institutional theory as an explanatory framework.

Situated in northern Europe and East Africa respectively, authorities in Norway

(Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning, 2010; Politidirektoratet, 2010, 2013) and Uganda

(Uganda Police, 2014) have acknowledged IWT as a problem that needs to be addressed

and prioritized and both countries have adopted laws and regulations to protect wildlife

and confront crime nationally. A relevant instrument in this context is the multilateral

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,

known as CITES. Currently there are 183 member countries, or “Parties” to CITES

across the globe. Norway ratified CITES in 1976, Uganda in 1991. CITES is an inter-

national agreement that seeks to ensure that trade in plants and animals does not threaten