BY PHILIP MAXSON
Philip Maxson is a sophomore at American University studying Environmental Studies and International Relations. He currently works as Knowledge Management Intern for the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy. He is interested in political ecology and conservation with a specific interest in hierarchical relationships in conservation efforts.
INTRODUCTION
We are experiencing unprecedented loss of biodiversity globally. Increased pollution, climate change, and environmental disasters are driving what is now being dubbed the sixth mass extinction event in Earth's history, leading more than 42,000 species to be placed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List as at risk for extinction [1]. At the same time, the international community has been confronted with a global increase in the poaching of charismatic fauna.
In light of these realities, the world began to view poaching as an issue of transnational crime [2]. Governments and NGOs perpetuated the idea that international criminal syndicates, similar to drug cartels, ran poaching operations. Conservation groups leveraged this idea to gain international funding for their efforts to conserve and defend ecosystems within “protected areas,” while states, like the US, were able to use anti-poaching and conservation efforts as a proxy to take down what they considered to be criminal syndicate operations [3]. It was a win-win situation for everyone. However, this assumptive depiction of poaching is misconstrued [4]. Although we can not definitively rule out a connection between all poaching and international crime, labeling all poachers as criminals is a “blunt characterization” and does little to address the underlying structural conditions that lead individuals to engage in poaching [5].
The international community’s oversimplification of poaching has led to more harm than good. While more and more land is being restricted within “protected areas,” the practice of poaching has continued, leading to the militarization of conservation zones with serious consequences for local communities. The tendency to commit to a one-size-fits-all approach has informed conservation initiatives that will, as a consequence, fail to achieve their desired results. Instead, conservationists must look to create a just and equitable future for conservation— one that prioritizes the well-being of Indigenous peoples and local communities and addresses the shortcomings of past projects.
WHAT IS POACHING?
To understand exactly how to address “the poaching issue” we must first acknowledge the complexities of poaching and its driving factors. There are three main types of poaching— Trophy, Medicative, and Consumptive. Trophy poaching is what we typically think about when we imagine poaching— hunting for decorative purposes. Its outputs include gorilla skin rugs, rhino ivory, or anything else used to signify wealth and status. Medicative poaching, on the other hand, involves the use of an animal part for medicative, aphrodisiac, or therapeutic purposes. Meanwhile, consumptive poaching is the illegal harvest of animals for consumption. This could be hunting for bushmeat or shooting a deer out of season, but often for the purpose of subsistence [6].
Many scholars differ in what they believe to be the main cause of poaching and illegal wildlife trade. Some label profitability as the main driver of the trade. Under this logic, the demand of wealthy buyers promotes the trade and solutions must focus on curbing demand [7]. Others argue that poverty is the main driver of poaching, as it can be a significant source of income for local communities in areas with a significant lack of economic opportunity [8]. In South Africa and Mozambique, for example, many jobs for men involve unsafe working conditions in extractive industries and offer very little pay [9]. Under such conditions, many men turn to poaching as a viable alternative for their subsistence. Generally, the driving factors of both profitability and necessity are relevant to explaining why individuals become poachers. Just as there exists wealth, there is also poverty, and it is not a single one that drives poaching but rather economic inequality as a whole [10]. You can't have a supply without poverty and you can't have a demand without excess wealth.
In addition to the economic factors that drive poaching, there are still other, less measurable forces at play. Annette Hubschle discusses how the history of conservation in southern Africa has led many to perceive poaching as a form of political protest given how colonial and apartheid governments brought large swaths of land under state control leading to the dislocation of local communities, with this forced displacement continuing to present day. This form of marginalization has led directly to increased poaching activity as “poachers and community members cited the loss of their land, hunting and land use rights for dissent and drivers” [11]. The use of poaching as a form of political dissent further complicates efforts to combat the practice, as community members may be inclined to shield known poachers from law enforcement.
Since poaching is such a complex and nuanced problem, attempts to resolve the issue are hindered where they treat poaching as a force resulting from one sole cause. Instead, it is more productive to acknowledge the multifaceted dynamics that lead individuals to turn to poaching as a viable source of income or political expression. Unfortunately, to-date, the international community has chosen to view poaching narrowly, criminalizing its practitioners and militarizing protected areas. The result is a form of conservation that has bred resentment, conflict, and abuse that has only complicated the protection of key ecosystems.
WHAT IS GREEN MILITARIZATION?
To combat this rise in poaching, many governments have resorted to militarizing protected areas, a practice that has been coined “green militarization.” Many scholars have critiqued this form of anti-poaching enforcement, whether that be due to its associated abuses, oversimplification of complicated issues, or glorification of a flawed practice. Protected area officials and other academics have, however, pushed back against these critiques. Citing local military contexts and benefits to communities provided by militarization, these practitioners and scholars have been quick to discredit the work of green militarization’s critics. It can be assumed that the debate over the “correct” form of anti-poaching enforcement may be just as complicated as poaching itself.
Green Militarization’s Critiques
Political ecologists and critical criminologists have led a campaign critiquing the green militarization movement, claiming that green militarization escalates conflicts between rangers and locals, alienating the communities surrounding protected areas [12]. Indeed, militarized conservation has been incredibly violent [13]. Rangers within protected areas are socialized to view local citizens as enemies of conservation, which often leads to conflicts between rangers and people within and around the protected area, regardless of whether they intend to poach or not [14].
This solution to poaching grossly mischaracterizes the problem, oversimplifying a nuanced issue and its driving factors. Under the framework of green militarization, if an individual is within a protected area unsanctioned they are assumed to be a poacher, and all poachers are considered evil. Thus, any trespasser deserves to be beaten, harassed, or even killed. A prime example of this comes from Botswana, where to address poaching of African elephants a “shoot-to-kill” policy was implemented for anyone suspected of being a poacher [15]. This shoot-to-kill policy has had long-lasting and detrimental effects on local communities, creating what is referred to as the “crisis of widows,” with women losing their husbands to anti-poaching enforcement. This crisis, coupled with a lack of economic opportunity for women, has flung communities deeper into a cycle of poverty— increasing incentives to poach [16].
Shoot-to-kill policies, as well as less extreme forms of militarization underpinned by the uncompromising logic described above, train those tasked with environmental protection to see poachers as less than human. The maintenance of a pristine environment justifies the use of violence. However, these ideas often ignore the ramifications for local communities. Protected areas are often responsible for the forced displacement of local and Indigenous populations, removing them from their ancestral hunting grounds [17]. Many people poaching today for consumptive, spiritual, and medicinal reasons are simply acting upon decades-old traditional land-use practices. The idea that traditional consumptive “poachers” should be treated as criminals oversimplifies the problem. Similarly, even for those who are poaching for international or domestic trade, militarized responses do little to address the deeper economic, social, and historical drivers of the illicit industry.
Furthermore, while the rate of poaching has been decreasing, the rate of demand continues to remain stable and many of the species conservationists are attempting to save continue to remain at risk of extinction [18]. These species will not remain adequately protected if we continue to focus on the spectacle of militarized conservation while turning a blind eye to the structural factors driving the poaching economy.
Green Militarization’s Proponents
On the other side of the debate, some argue that green militarization can benefit some areas. Often, rangers are the only form of law enforcement on the ground in and around protected areas, and their military training is just as vital for protecting communities bordering protected areas as it is for protecting wildlife. This is true where armed groups with extractive interests may threaten or seek to exploit local communities. And, not all rangers tasked with protecting conservation zones are armed. Critiques of green militarization often focus on the “blood and guts,” without acknowledging the existence of non-militarized conservation or the benefits of militarization in areas affected by conflict and illegal extraction [19]. These benefits, especially when paired with other community-led development, have been shown to have positive impacts [20]. Still, just because green militarization may benefit some areas does not negate the need for a more nuanced approach to anti-poaching.
WHY SHOULD CONSERVATIONISTS CARE?
Truly solving “the poaching problem” demands addressing its social and economic causes and ensuring that solutions do not further exacerbate the exact issues that drive people to poach in the first place. Within international wildlife trade, it is often the “foot soldiers” who are systematically harmed by violent anti-poaching efforts [21]. While attacks on the common poacher may seem to be fixing the issue, they do little to address the factors that continue to incentivize poaching. Additionally, abuse and disenfranchisement caused by anti-poaching efforts will continue to make poor communities poorer— exacerbating the issue [22]. In fact, economic incentives are not limited to local community members— rangers themselves have been shown to see poaching as an option for income generation [23]. Additionally, increased militarization and attacks on local communities have been shown to drive more people to poach as a form of political protest [24].
Moving forward, conservationists must take a more holistic approach. There may very well be areas where militarized conservation works well. The issue with the current approach, however, is that conservationists are unwilling to budge on militarization and acknowledge that their efforts are hurting their cause. Looking forward, many promising anti-poaching efforts don’t require militarization. Community-led anti-poaching efforts have shown promising outcomes in initial testing and could prove to be the future of conservation. Giving local communities land management rights, sharing revenue from protected areas amongst the communities within and surrounding them, and focusing on a bottom-up approach to conservation are all methods of working towards a more just and effective vision of conservation [25]. Still, ensuring that community-led conservation efforts are successful will require conservation organizations to change their ideas about what it truly means to “protect the environment.” Instead of protecting large swaths of land from human involvement, it is necessary to incorporate local communities into conservation and work to create just and equitable solutions to our extinction crisis.
CONCLUSION
Current efforts are failing to stop poaching mainly because they don't address its root causes. The complexity of poaching makes it almost impossible to have one solution that works globally. Instead, it is necessary to work on understanding the cultural contexts of individual areas and develop solutions that focus on a community-forward, bottom-up approach. This may include certain degrees of militarization in some cases, but this approach must be undertaken with an acknowledgment of the potential for abuse and exploitation it carries. The real issues arise when we assume that militarization is the only solution to preserving biodiversity. The transition to just conservation is not going to be an easy one. It requires acknowledging the very real pitfalls of ongoing conservation efforts and recognizing the need for change.
References:
[1] IUCN. 2022. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org.
[2] Duffy, Rosaleen. “Crime, Security, and Illegal Wildlife Trade: Political Ecologies of International Conservation.” Global Environmental Politics 22, no. 2 (May 2022): 23-44, p. 24. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00645.
[3] Ibid, pp. 28-33.
[4] Duffy, Rosaleen. Nature Crime: How We’re Getting Conservation Wrong. Yale University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vkt2w. ; Duffy, Rosaleen. “Crime, Security, and Illegal Wildlife Trade: Political Ecologies of International Conservation.” Op Cit, p. 33. ; Felbab-Brown, Vanda. “Wildlife and Drug Trafficking, Terrorism, and Human Security: Realities, Myths, and Complexities Beyond Africa.” Prism 7, no. 4 (2018): 124-137. https://proxy1.library.jhu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/wildlife-drug-trafficking-terrorism-human/docview/2156324111/se-2.
[5] Duffy, Rosaleen. “Crime, Security, and Illegal Wildlife Trade: Political Ecologies of International Conservation.” Op Cit, p. 31. ; Lustrum, Elizabeth, Nícia Givá. “What Drives Commercial Poaching? From Poverty To Economic Inequality.” Biological Conservation 245 (May 2020): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108505.
[6] Montgomery, Robert. “Poaching is Not One Big Thing.” Trends In Ecology And Evolution 35, no. 6 (June 2020): 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.02.013.
[7] Duffy, Rosaleen. Nature Crime: How We’re Getting Conservation Wrong. Op Cit.
[8] The notion that poverty must equal deviance has, however, been rightly critiqued by scholars who argue against the claim that poor people are “more prone to deviant behavior” in the case of poaching. Source: Hubschle, Annette. “The Social Economy Of Rhino Poaching: Of Economic Freedom Fighters, Professional Hunters and Marginalized Local People.” Current Sociology 63, no. 3 (2016): 427-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116673210.
[9] Massé, Francis, Nicia Givá, Elizabeth Lustrum. “A Feminist Political Ecology Of Wildlife Crime: The Gendered Dimensions Of A Poaching Economy And Its Impacts In Southern Africa.” Geoforum 126, (2021): 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.07.031.
[10] Lustrum, Elizabeth, Nícia Givá. “What Drives Commercial Poaching? From Poverty To Economic Inequality.” Op Cit. ; Lustrum, Elizabeth, Nícia Givá, Francis Massé, Filipe Mate, Paulo Lopes Jose.”The Rhino Horn Trade And Radical Inequality As Environmental Conflict.” The Journal Of Peasant Studies 50, no. 3 (2023): 1085-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2021.1961130.
[11] Hubschle, Annette. “The Social Economy Of Rhino Poaching: Of Economic Freedom Fighters, Professional Hunters and Marginalized Local People.” Op Cit.
[12] Duffy, Rosaleen, Freya A. V. St John, Bram Büscher, Dan Brockington. “The Militarization of Anti-Poaching: Undermining Long Term Goals?” Environmental Conservation 42, no. 4 (2015): 345–48, p. 2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation/article/militarization-of-antipoaching-undermining-long-term-goals/E8082D02CBBD5831F91F78B44FF7F6AD.
[13] For example, “green militarization” resulted in the deaths of over 500 men between 2010 and 2015 in Mozambique alone. Source: Massé, Francis, Nicia Givá, Elizabeth Lustrum. “A Feminist Political Ecology Of Wildlife Crime: The Gendered Dimensions Of A Poaching Economy And Its Impacts In Southern Africa.” Op Cit, p. 205.
[14] Verweijen, Judith. “A microdynamics approach to geographies of violence: Mapping the kill chain in militarized conservation areas.” Political Geography 79, (May 2020): 1-10, p. 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102153.
[15] Mogomotsi, Goemeone, Patricia Madigele. “Live By The Gun, Die By The Gun: Botswana’s ‘Shoot-To-Kill’ Policy As An Anti-Poaching Strategy.” SA Crime Quarterly no. 60, (June 2017): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2017/v0n60a1787.
[16] Massé, Francis, Nicia Givá, Elizabeth Lustrum. “A Feminist Political Ecology Of Wildlife Crime: The Gendered Dimensions Of A Poaching Economy And Its Impacts In Southern Africa.” Op Cit.
[17] Jacoby, Karl. Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Univ of California Press, 2014. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt5vjzwv.
[18] Hauenstein, Severin, Mrigesh Kshatriya, Julian Blanc, Carsten F. Dormann, and Colin M. Beale. “African Elephant Poaching Rates Correlate with Local Poverty, National Corruption and Global Ivory Price.” Nature Communications 10, no. 1 (2019): 1–9, p. 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09993-2.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Jooste, Johan and Sam M. Ferreira. "An Appraisal of Green Militarization to Protect Rhinoceroses in Kruger National Park." African Studies Quarterly 18, no. 1 (September 2018): 49-59. http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/154/1540194561.pdf.
[21] Witter, Rebecca. “Why militarized conservation may be counter-productive: illegal wildlife hunting as defiance.” Journal Of Political Ecology 28, (April 4, 2021): 175-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2357.
[22] Massé, Francis, Nicia Givá, Elizabeth Lustrum. “A Feminist Political Ecology Of Wildlife Crime: The Gendered Dimensions Of A Poaching Economy And Its Impacts In Southern Africa.” Op Cit, p. 205.
[23] Keir, Tara. “How rhino protectors in South Africa have become a major threat to the species.” National Geographic (July 6, 2021). Accessed February 2, 2024. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-rhino-protectors-in-south-africa-became-threat-to-species.
[24] Witter, Rebecca. “Why militarized conservation may be counter-productive: illegal wildlife hunting as defiance.” Op Cit.
[25] The World Bank. “Engaging Communities in Wildlife Conservation.” (July 12, 2016). Accessed February 3, 2024. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/07/12/engaging-communities-in-wildlife-conservation.
Photo: Impala in Kruger National Park, South Africa, Utopia_88, Getty Images, licensed with Canva Pro