According to WWF's report concerning this problem, illegal wildlife trade has become a lucrative business for criminal organizations. Indeed, it presents low risks compared to drug trafficking and can generate significant profits.

Furthermore, the current global approach to the fight against illegal wildlife trafficking is a failure because this struggle is not the priority of governments as a whole

For the approach to fight against illegal wildlife trafficking to be successful, it must address the heart of the problem, that is, change the behavior of individuals, the seekers, the providers and all those who shoot benefit from illegal wildlife trafficking.

This is an interesting question! As the experts in the field of public administration and policy would say, it can in fact be regarded as a 'wicked problem'. Having said this, it doesn't mean that this issue of wildlife poaching and trafficking is not solvable but rather it is meant to indicate that so many intertwined factors are involved. Among these factors are corruption and inadequate transparency in the governance of wildlife and its associated activities which include trading of products. The mentioned factors have in some cases led to perversion of justice, brutality of animals, and breach of security.

Concerning curbing wildlife trafficking, training and more awareness creation for the personnel at different ports were suggested in a World Bank report titled 'Tools and Resources to Combat Illegal Wildlife'.

International trade in illicit wildlife commodities reminds me on trade in illicit narcotic drugs that escalated since 1971 (Nixon, USA) into a 'War on Drugs' against 'enemies' lasting for almost half a century with no end in sight. Similarly, the question on RG uses war terminology ('fighting'). War and fighting against enemies evidently unsuccessful policies. What can we learn from the past and how can we become more effective?

The potential profit of trade in say cocaine and ivory as pars pro toto for illicit drugs and illicit wildlife commodities is high enough for many to take the risk of penalty, even the death penalty. A wicked aspect is that the more successful the 'war' becomes, the higher price and profit of illicit commodities will be and the more 'enemies' are created. May be price and market mechanism are a starting point for intervention. That seems on option in the case of ivory and rhino horn

The other change of perspective is to see who the 'enemy' is. Many drugs (e.g. cocaine; heroin) and illicit wildlife products (rhino horn; ivory) originate from peripheral, poor areas were the inhabitants neither own the land, nor the wildlife (nor the timber). Consequently nobody locally protects the means of production. The protection offered by the state and the internal organisations on behalf of the global citizens is hopelessly ineffective in the poor periphery. In case in point are the elephant and rhino in Namibia, that are relatively safe on freehold hunting and safari farms, but poached elsewhere including 'protected' areas. These farms derive income from their wildlife. In addition, several of these farms could sell ivory and rhino horn as well, but cannot under current CITES rules. This refers back to the price mechanism in the preceding paragraph, increased supply, decreased price.

A third perspective is who bears the cost and who enjoys the benefit of wildlife. Those nations that have terminated their big wildlife in the past, have recently be reminded (e.g. by the return of the lion, wolf, bear) that wildlife is only compatible under defined conditions with farming (e.g our elephant articles) and therefore at a price for the residents.

Hello Thomas;

Let's distinguish between valuable wildlife species that are innocuous in their native habitat, (eg. pangolins or parrots) and those that have an impact on the local economy of poor people, (eg. elephants, lions and wolves).

Poor people in either setting will see "harvesting" these species as an unqualified good. Ecotourism and all of that seems to attempt to make protecting these species more beneficial than "harvesting" them. Developing that kind of local economy seems more difficult than it seems with the saying of it.

Wealthy people far from the poor people value the "products" of these species for reasons of vanity, conspicuous consumption or bogus health or life style reasons. Changing the views of these wealthy people in many countries seems as intractable as modifying rural economies does.

In western North America, the reintroduction of wolves illustrates another aspect of the problem. The rural, ranching culture is the barrier.

1. Predators are bad...whether they attack livestock or not...whether the rancher is compensated for livestock depradaton or not.

2. Hunting prowess is good. Killing a bear or wolf produces social capital...whether the hunter is a rancher or not.

3. Having a stuffed "trophy" at home on display is a public display of social status.

These values date back to the beginning of pastoralism.

Fundamentally, answering the question "Does wildlife have any intrinsic value?" in the affirmative is the only real solution. Dealing with rural poverty and urban vanity can only delay the decline. Finally, we must find a way to avoid equating wildlife with the "Commons". Garrett Hardin's book "The Tragedy of the Commons" had it explained.

Cheers, Jim Des Lauriers

One way to look at the problem is that the markets have changed over time. Decades of wildlife management, such as in Africa, has been affected by changing politics and accessibility of key sites. Success stories in term of bringing animals back from low numbers, particularly larger species, as in Africa, has created unforeseen problems. Having followed conservation activities since the early 1960s, there was a time, along with various environmental movements, when the future was looking promising and species had been saved from the ravages of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Organised efforts at international and national, and local, levels have played a significant part, but the ineffectiveness written of in this thread is unfortunately all too true in too many places. Now we see the successes rapidly being replaced by failures. Technological changes are obviously having inroads on what can be done and like the drug wars, it's a case of keeping up and trying to be a step ahead (on each side). A global market shift in recent decades has seen a rise in regions with a greater proportion of population who view wildlife in terms of its use instead of being seen as part of our global heritage and as part of what must be maintained for future generations. For example, the rising middle class with greater levels of disposable income in Asia, especially China, has seen a concomitant rise in demand for wildlife products, particularly in food and medicines. And timely, too. Just as numbers of many species of interest like rhino had reached more sustainable and manageable levels, demand for their products has rapidly increased. Was the result of decades of wildlife and conservation management merely to provide a supermarket on the hoof to be shopped as needed with a growing list of demands? These types of species targeted actions, expanding wildlife trafficking demands, represent a rise in something that efforts of 40-50 years ago had hoped to banish, but it has survived, but only until there's nothing left to poach and traffic. How long before there is nothing left? Are we looking at a new generation of sealers? Remember how in the few decades of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries the killing of seals with no thought of consequences saw the industry collapse in a relatively short time. The same with fur trapping in North America. You see a rich resource and almost wipe it out. Are we faced with a millennial generation of sealers and fur trappers? But this time going until none remain? One day even the survivors in zoos won't be safe. Prices can only go up. Like the war on drugs, how can it be stopped? If we cannot stop people and sex trafficking who would care about wildlife? And from a point of view of those in countries that can try and control this crisis, and that is what it is, general exposure to wildlife documentaries and such like has broadened an understanding of what's at stake. But in general preaching to the converted. It sounds trite, but education is the only long term solution. If you cannot change the current generation, how about the next one? The ugly reality, however, is that most of us just cope with surviving and dealing with higher costs of everything. From my own experience, one big obstacle is getting people emotionally invested. This was the focus behind the original use of a panda as a conservation symbol. Save it and you save an ecosystem, with other things along for the ride. Also as an emotional investment, you want to save what you know. Regrettably, few of us know in detail the extent of what is out there in peril, what these animals are called, what they look like, why they matter, and where they live. And then we have few of us knowing where many of the places of interest are located. Ignorance of what is endangered + ignorance of where it is found = indifference. It has ever been thus, going back to the first stirrings of conservation, such as efforts to save the American Buffalo over a century ago. But enough hear the message. Education has changed, too, in a digital age, and with social media able to do amazing things, can these tools be used to save animals [and plants] and places? I think any success must come from making people see things differently. It is a cliche of sorts and nothing new about it all, but at the end of the day it's all down to human nature. What's in it for me? Can we answer that effectively?