poaching problem and solution essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How to Stop Poaching and Protect Endangered Species? Forget the ‘Kingpins’

Authorities keep arresting people said to be bosses of wildlife trafficking, but that isn’t making a dent in the problem.

By Rachel Nuwer

In 2003, enterprising criminals in Southeast Asia realized that they could exploit a loophole in South Africa’s hunting laws to move rhino horns legally across international borders. Normally, North Americans and Europeans account for the bulk of South Africa’s rhino hunting permits. But that year, 10 Vietnamese “hunters” quietly applied as well.

Hunters are allowed to transport legally obtained trophies across borders under various international and domestic laws. The Vietnamese hunters each returned home with the mounted horn, head or even whole body of a rhino .

Word spread. Though Vietnam and other Asian countries have no history of big-game sport hunting, South Africa was soon inundated with applicants from Asia, who sometimes paid $85,000 or more to shoot a single white rhino.

[Read more: Rhino poacher killed by elephants then eaten by lions in South Africa.]

That represented the beginning of an illicit industry referred to as pseudo-hunting — a first step toward the rhino poaching crisis that rages today. And the story of one of its chief practitioners shows the lengths to which criminals will go to move wildlife contraband.

No one knows just how many rhino horns were actually sent back to Asia as purported hunting trophies. South Africa has records of more than 650 rhino trophies leaving the country for Vietnam from 2003 to 2010 — goods worth some $200 million to $300 million on the black market. Vietnam, however, has corresponding paperwork for only a fraction.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Poaching has had devastating effects on these animals

Poaching is defined as the illegal hunting or live capture of wild animals that are not one’s own or are protected by law. This illegal trafficking and killing of wildlife involves large-scale, sophisticated networks—it isn’t just a few individuals hunting on their own.  

Poaching doesn’t only involve hunting—it also involves trapping and catching live animals to bring them into the illegal wildlife trade, often for exotic pets . There is also a difference between subsistence poaching and commercial poaching. Subsistence poaching is done by groups and individuals to fulfill their own nutritional needs, whereas commercial poaching is done for profit. 

As many individuals and groups rely on it for income, food supply, or products for traditional medicine, poaching is a complicated issue . Alternative, wildlife-friendly livelihood opportunities—like wildlife tourism—need to be supported to combat poaching at its source. We also need to better fund rangers , who work on the ground to stop poaching before it happens, and law enforcement officials who fight wildlife crime . 

Poachers around the world target animals large and small. Here are just a few animals whose populations have been impacted by poaching. 

Antelopes  

Hunting of antelopes for bushmeat occurs in many places, even where it is banned. They are also poached for their horns, which are traded for traditional medicine, carvings, and aphrodisiacs.  

Reedbucks are one type of African antelope targeted by poachers. Mountain reedbucks are an endangered species; they’ve experienced significant decline from poaching and hunting by dogs. Bohor reedbucks , though not currently endangered, have been eliminated from large parts of their former range thanks to overhunting. Southern reedbucks are also frequently targeted because they move slowly and are a convenient size to be caught by hunting dogs. 

Impalas are another frequently targeted antelope species. In 2023, South Africa National Parks reported 115 known impala deaths due to poacher’s snares between January and October. There were also 48 zebra deaths, 25 kudu deaths, and 23 nyala deaths.  

Buffalo  

In many countries, African buffalo are poached for bushmeat. Poaching has led to a significant decline in their population in recent years, and it occurs even within national parks. Wild water buffalo are also targeted by poachers. 

In 2023, South Africa National Parks reported that 135 buffalo died from being caught in poachers’ snares between January and October. This made up 35% of all reported poaching deaths in this period in South Africa. 

Rhinos  

Rhino poaching is unfortunately on the rise— 7,100 rhinos were poached in Africa over a recent 10-year period. Because they can be very dangerous animals when faced on the ground, poachers fly in helicopters and target them with guns and tranquiliser darts from the sky. Then, with the rhino dead or sedated, they remove their horns with chainsaws—a process which takes only 10 minutes. Even if the rhino is not initially killed, sawing off their horns creates open wounds that are often lethal.  

In 2023 alone, at least 499 rhinos were poached in South Africa alone, which marked a rise of at least 51 since 2022. 

Rhino horns are sought out for traditional Asian medicine and as luxury items. However, no scientific evidence suggests that they have any medicinal value. Black rhinos are one species that have been particularly impacted—up to 96% of the black rhino population was wiped out from 1970 to 1990 due to poaching, and they are now critically endangered. Indian rhinos were poached to the point of being reduced to only about 200 individuals, though their numbers have since recovered to more than 2,000 . They are classed as vulnerable. 

Javan rhinos are less fortunate, having only about 76 surviving individuals thanks to poaching and factors impacting their habitats. They are classed as critically endangered. There are also only about 30 critically endangered Sumatran rhinos left. 

White rhinos have also been severely impacted by poaching. It has decimated the northern white rhino subspecies. There are now just two northern white rhinos remaining who are protected around the clock by guards. As a species, white rhinos are classed as near threatened. Southern white rhinos are classed as near threatened, and northern white rhinos are classed as critically endangered. 

Elephants  

Elephants have long been targeted for their tusks, which are made of ivory . Though the ivory trade is banned in many countries, it is still legal in places such as Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand. Despite bans, poaching of African elephants rose in the early 2000s and peaked in 2010 —though since then, it has been on a slow decline. About 20,000 elephants are killed in Africa each year. 

Poaching is currently the number one cause of death for African forest elephants, which are critically endangered. It’s also a significant cause of population decline for African savannah elephants , which are endangered. Poaching is not only causing population decline but also affecting the evolution of the species—the elephants without tusks are now more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on their genetics, which means elephants are now less likely to have tusks than they were in the past. Tusks are essential for digging for water, lifting objects, gathering food, stripping bark from trees, and defense. Tuskless elephants experience serious disadvantages to their survival. 

Though they aren’t as often targeted, endangered Asian elephants face poaching too. Trade in Asian elephants’ skin and other body parts has increased in Southeast Asia in recent years, and they are also targeted for their tusks. 

IFAW is dedicated to protecting elephants from poaching by supporting rangers , mitigating human-wildlife conflict , and providing alternative livelihood opportunities . 

African grey parrots  

As they are high in demand in the exotic pet trade , African grey parrots are frequent targets of poaching for illegal trade. Since 1975, over 1.3 million of these birds entered international trade, and unfortunately 30% to 66% of grey parrots captured from the wild die in the process—so the total number impacted by this illegal trade is likely much higher. Today, they are listed as endangered . 

African greys have almost gone extinct in Ghana, which has lost 90-99% of its grey parrot population due to illegal trade. Their total wild population is declining by up to 21% each year. 

In 2022, IFAW supported an investigation into an illegal wildlife trafficking operation, from which 119 African grey parrots were rescued. In 2016, IFAW advocated for African grey parrots to be uplisted to Appendix I of CITES to receive the highest level of protection, which was ultimately successful. 

Apes  

Apes—including bonobos , orangutans , chimpanzees , gorillas , and gibbons —are often hunted for bushmeat. While bushmeat once provided necessary food to local communities, it is now a massive commercial market, especially for consumers in Asia, who view bushmeat as a luxury product. This has increased the demand for bushmeat in Asia and Africa, where apes are found. More than five million tonnes of bushmeat are exported from the Congo Basin each year. 

Though many local communities have taboos against hunting apes like bonobos, poachers from other areas travel to the Congo Basin to hunt them. Bonobos are endangered . 

Critically endangered orangutans are often poached for the illegal exotic pet trade , especially baby orangutans, though adults are also killed for their skulls and bones. The exotic pet trade also impacts chimpanzees, which are endangered, and gibbons, most species of which are also endangered. It’s estimated that for every baby chimpanzee taken from the wild, 25 or more adult chimps may have been killed. 

The IFAW-supported Centre for Orangutan Protection in Indonesia rehabilitates orangutans rescued from trade. In 2023, IFAW’s partners Jakarta Animal Aid Network and Wildlife Trust of India rescued a ten-month-old male orangutan from traffickers . We also support the rescue and rehabilitation of bonobos at Friends of Bonobos in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we’ve supported the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary , which rehabilitates chimps rescued by the Uganda Wildlife Authority. 

Lions  

Lions are illegally hunted by poachers for their body parts, including their bones, teeth, and claws, all of which are highly valued in traditional medicine and the illegal wildlife trade. Often, when they are poached, it is done using snares , which are extremely inhumane. Lions are classed as vulnerable . 

Ecotourism is valuable in protecting lions from poaching. Most countries in Africa where lions live have developed infrastructure to support wildlife tourism , which enables them to bring in significant revenue—an alternative to poaching. Outside of these protected areas, though, lions are often victims of retaliatory killings, because they prey on livestock and pose significant threats to the livelihoods of farmers. 

IFAW supported the training of volunteers in Uganda who work to prevent lion poaching. We’ve also worked with conservation organisations to protect the Ishasha lions of Queen Elizabeth National Park. 

Peccaries  

Peccaries, also known as javelinas, are members of the New World pigs family and are found in North and South America. The endangered Chacoan peccary is hunted throughout its range for its hides and meat, despite being listed on Appendix I of CITES, hunting of wildlife being strictly prohibited in Paraguay, and the species receiving trade protection in Argentina. Poaching of the collared peccary is also a common occurrence. Though collared peccaries are currently listed as least concern, poaching could pose a threat to its survival if it persists. There is a lack of enforcement of protections in many areas, leading to the over-hunting of peccaries. 

Poison dart frogs  

Because of the demand for these species in the exotic pet trade, poison dart frogs are frequent victims of poaching and wildlife trafficking. Despite many poison dart frogs being bred in captivity, there is still a thriving trade in South America, even though local governments have tried to intervene. This illegal trade has pushed some species to the brink of extinction. 

Helmeted curassows  

Helmeted curassows are large birds found in Venezuela and Colombia. Classed as vulnerable , they are hunted for food and traditional jewelry; their skulls and eggs are sometimes kept as hunting trophies. The large casque on its forehead—its ‘helmet’—is used to make aphrodisiacs. Hunting of helmeted curassows occurs even in well-established protected areas. The species is listed under CITES Appendix III in Colombia, which means that the export of helmeted curassows is still allowed but requires proper permits. 

Leatherback turtles  

While adult leatherback turtles are not as often hunted, their eggs are frequently stolen throughout coastal communities. This is one of the biggest threats to leatherback turtles’ survival, as not enough turtles are born to replace those that are lost. Nesting females do sometimes get targeted for meat. These leatherback turtle products are thought of as aphrodisiacs. Leatherback turtles are listed under Appendix I of CITES, meaning commercial trade of leatherbacks is entirely prohibited. They are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN. 

Tigers  

Tigers are poached for their skins, bones, and meat, which are traded at high values. In 2023, there were 56 known poached tigers, preceded by 39 known deaths in 2022 and 56 in 2021. However, it’s likely that there were many more tigers poached, as there are many tigers found dead without verification of poaching evidence. In Southeast Asia, tiger poaching numbers are also very high, and it is often done through snaring and poisoning. Tigers, which are classed as endangered, are frequent victims of illegal international trade. 

IFAW has worked with Wildlife Trust of India to strengthen the enforcement of protections for tigers by conducting snare walks, supporting rangers, and providing legal and enforcement support. 

Pangolins  

All pangolin species are included in CITES Appendix I, and new regulations have recently been introduced in China regarding the trade of pangolins, but they are still one of the most widely trafficked animals in the world. Though there isn’t any scientific evidence to support their usage in medicine, pangolin scales are believed to have medicinal properties. Their meat is also consumed in some of their native countries. In the US, there is demand for pangolin skin for leather items like boots, belts, and bags— cowboy boots made from pangolin skin are one driving force behind the decline of these animals. Every pangolin species is either vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. 

Though the trade in pangolin skin in the US has reportedly declined since 2000 , this is not necessarily good news for all other animals. Pangolin leather is now being replaced in many products with the skin of arapaima fish, which are native to the Amazon. A 2019 study found leather products made from both pangolins and arapaima on eBay, and 75% of such listings were in breach of eBay policy—and possibly illegal. 

In 2016, IFAW led the charge for protecting pangolins. As a result of our efforts, CITES upgraded all pangolin species from Appendix II to Appendix I. We also support cross-border collaboration to prevent the trafficking of pangolins and their scales. 

Glass frogs  

Glass frogs— half of which are endangered or vulnerable species—are taken from the wild for the exotic pet trade. They’ve been found hidden in shipments moving from Central America to Europe, and according to trade data and a collection of online advertisements, more than nine species of glass frogs are currently traded internationally. From 2016 to 2021, imports of glass frogs to the US increased by a whopping 44,000% .  

In 2022, glass frogs received CITES Appendix II protections. IFAW advocated for this decision among all voting member parties of CITES to ensure a final vote in the right direction. 

Wildlife Crime

16 of the world’s most endangered animals in 2024

Wildlife conservation in Kenya

Expert opinions

How improving ranger welfare can help us fight the climate crisis

Every problem has a solution, every solution needs support.

The problems we face are urgent, complicated, and resistant to change. Real solutions demand creativity, hard work, and involvement from people like you.

Unfortunately, the browser you use is outdated and does not allow you to display the site correctly. Please install any of the modern browsers, for example:

• Current Students
• Faculty / Staff
• Paying for College
• Alumni Services
• Maine Transfer Guarantee
• Program Finder
• Affordable, Flexible, Accessible
• Distance Education
• All Online Courses & Degrees
• Bachelor’s Degrees Online
• Master’s Degrees Online
• Start Dates
• Admissions, Costs & Aid
• Partnerships
• Faculty and Contacts
• Academic and Career Support
• Student Testimonials
• Distance Education Advantage
• Distance Education Blogs
• In-Person Education
• Sustainable Ventures
• Careers & Outcomes
• Strategic Plan
• Project Evolution
• Project Stratus
• About Unity
• Office of the President
• Our Evolution
• Sustainable Achievements & Initiatives
• Reinventing College
• Extended Reality (XR)
• Commencement
• Give to Unity Environmental University
• Institutional Communications
• Unity Environmental University News
• Unity Store

Frustrated with the 2024-2025 FAFSA ® Challenges? Unity Distance Education Is Here to Help and Support: Navigating the Issues and Finding Solutions

Frustrated with the 2024-2025 FAFSA ® Challenges?

Home  /  How To Stop Poaching

How To Stop Poaching: 9 Ways To Stop Wildlife Trafficking

Many magnificent animals across the world have been pushed to the brink of extinction due to poaching. With the right knowledge and skills, you can learn how to stop poaching in the U.S. and abroad.

Poaching might seem like a far-off problem, but it’s part of a greater relationship with our environment and our society. The survival of many keystone species depends on stopping and preventing the spread of large-scale poaching. In this post, we will answer the questions of what is wildlife poaching, what is being done to stop poaching already, and what more can be done.

Enforce and influence policies that protect wildlife with a  degree in conservation law enforcement .

What Is Poaching?

Poaching involves the criminal hunting and trade of animals or their body parts. The answer to the question “Why do people poach?” ranges from protecting livestock to collecting trophies. However, despite the reason, poaching is illegal. It is a major problem in much of the world due to the lucrative underground trade of exotic animals and animal parts. Poaching is a systemic problem that several groups must come together to stop including: 

• Wildlife conservationists
• Legislators
• Law enforcement officers &  conservation law enforcement officers

Why Is Poaching Bad?

Humans have a storied history of nearly poaching many species to extinction, including the American beaver in the 1830s and the African elephant in modern times. Black Rhinos are critically endangered due to the high demand for their horns, and without intervention, they may become extinct as well. The loss of these species is often detrimental to the health of the ecosystem.

How does poaching affect humans? It affects humans as much as it affects the environment we live in. Wildlife loss can lead to economic and social impacts, from the loss of tourism revenue to gaps in our natural heritage. It is vital to protect trafficked animals and educate the public about our connection to wildlife.

9 Solutions To Poaching

Poaching causes unnecessary harm to animals. A compassionate person might ask themselves: What are ways to stop poaching? Are there solutions to the effects of poaching? Are there careers in poaching prevention? Below, we highlight nine different strategies to stop poaching using a range of approaches, including:

• Legislation
• Community involvement

Raise Awareness

Many Americans think of poaching as a faraway problem that does not affect them. However, poaching occurs in the U.S. every year. People illegally kill fish, wolves, black bears, and bighorn sheep. Even killing deer in an area where hunting is not allowed or a permit is needed is considered poaching. 

Following hunting laws keeps all people and animals safe and ecosystems in balance. Anyone can raise awareness about poaching in the U.S. by talking about it with friends, family, and neighbors. You can also post about the poaching of wildlife on social media and include suggestions on what people can do to help. 

Strengthen Legislation and Law Enforcement

Strategic use of legislation and law enforcement can dramatically reduce poaching operations in some areas. Here are some examples: 

• Stricter laws around the sale and trade of animal products
• Stricter laws around buying and selling exotic pets 
• More  wildlife conservation officers  and/or  game wardens  to patrol backcountry areas

Support Local Communities

Due to our ever-expanding drain on natural resources, human populations all over the world are expanding further into wild territories. This expansion creates opportunities for poaching as access increases to previously remote natural spaces. Local communities need support to develop practices that help people and wildlife thrive together. 

In rural communities where poaching occurs, people should be offered other economic opportunities that could remove their motivation to engage in poaching. For farmers and ranchers, government-subsidized programs to protect livestock could reduce the illegal killing of predatory wildlife. 

Over 100 years ago, Charles Young, the superintendent of Sequoia National Park worked with the local community to reduce animal trafficking in the park. Visit Unity’s blog to learn more about his legacy and the contributions of other  black conservationists in the U.S.

Promote Responsible Tourism

You have likely heard the story about the prominent  CEO  who used his soaring profits to go on African safaris to hunt rhinos, elephants, lynx, and zebras. Pictures of his trips blew up online and gave the executive heat. However, he was only able to go on these illegal hunting trips due to a lucrative tourism business built on the bones of protected animals. 

Pressures to adapt to modern ethics have led to an increase in the popularity of  ecotourism . Ecotourists can feel like they are more a part of the area they are visiting or at least hurting it less. 

Enhance Conservation Efforts

Ecotourism brings in money from afar to invest in local communities and entrepreneurial conservation efforts. However, strengthening conservation efforts takes a concerted effort from many stakeholders: 

• Governments
• Private landowners
• Sanctuaries/reserves

Conversation efforts often include tracking wildlife to monitor populations and rehabilitating injured animals. However, there is plenty of room for new creative solutions in the conservation space, especially using modern technology such as  Geographic Information Systems (GIS) .

Strengthen Border Control and Customs

Sometimes, illegally acquired animals or animal parts get brought to the U.S. from other countries. Focusing border control efforts on locating poached animals may stop them before they can enter the country. As a citizen, you can advocate for border control and customs departments to increase their efforts in stopping animal poachers. 

Become a  wildlife conservation officer  to ensure people follow the law when traveling with animals.

Disrupt The Supply Chain

By outlawing the sale of products related to the underground animal trade, buyers will be less likely to seek out these products. By disrupting demand, the businesses that thrived on poaching will go out of business. Start small by only buying ethically-sourced animal products. Go big by pursuing a degree in wildlife conservation to help boost a career in conservation, whether you want to work in the public or private sector.

Foster International Cooperation

Ecosystems do not know borders. Protecting them requires cooperation between countries. Other countries must also criminalize the sale, shipping, trade, or hunting of endangered animals to prevent and reduce poaching. It takes a global effort to protect our natural resources. 

Furthermore, our efforts to foster international cooperation to stop animal trafficking should be culturally-sensitive. Often, demand for exotic animals or animal parts can come from international communities who believe the animal/part is: 

• Status-affirming

Mobilize Public-Private Partnerships

National parks, forests, and other natural areas often do not have the budget and resources necessary to properly patrol and enforce poaching laws. Private businesses, contractors, and NGOs work with various government agencies to fill in the gaps as needed in environmental protection efforts. When public and private stakeholders can work together with a strong delegation system in place, these partnerships can be effective ways to stop poaching. Consider a master’s degree in wildlife conservation if you want to work as a director or manager of an NGO. 

Ready To Learn More About Unity Environmental University?

Learn How To Stop Poaching In A Unity Environmental University Program

Poaching is any illegal hunting, trapping, or trading of animals. Why is poaching a problem? It’s detrimental to ecosystems and has led to the extinction of many animal species around the world. How to prevent poaching for good involves educating the public and increasing legislation to protect wildlife and prosecute poachers. No matter which path you choose, a career dedicated to how to stop poaching will be rewarding. 

Begin your career against poaching with a  Bachelor of Science in Conservation Law Enforcement . This hybrid online/in-person degree will prepare you for being a park ranger or fish and game warden. You will gain real-world skills to catch poachers and help poached wild animals through fieldwork during the program. 96% of Unity’s Conservation Law Enforcement students who responded to the Senior and/or Alumni Survey were employed in their area of study within six months after graduation!

You have selected the Careers block. To make changes, switch to the edit mode.

Start Your Journey

Looking for Answers

Get More Info

© Unity Environmental University 2024. “America’s Environmental University.™”

Privacy Overview

Poaching is a persistent problem in many countries. What are the causes of the rise in poaching? What are the effects of this practice?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Answer the 'Problem and Solution' topic

Problem-and-solution essays fall naturally into two parts, the first describing and exploring the problem, the second setting out the solution or solutions.

You essay structure should look something like this:

• Introduction
• Body paragraph 1 – Problems
• Body paragraph 2 – Solutions

Examples to start your body paragraph:

• One of the first problems of the...
• Another problem that needs to be considered...
• A possible solution to this problem would be...
• One immediate practical solution is to...

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

On a recent holiday, you lost a valuable item. Fortunately, you have travel insurance to cover the cost of anything lost. Write a letter to the manager of your insurance company. In your letter: Describe the item you lost. Explain how you lost it. Tell the insurance company what you would like them to do

In the future, nobody will buy printed newspapers or books because they will be able to read everything they want online without paying. to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement, some people fail in school, but end up being successful in life. why is this the case what is the most important thing to succeed in life, veryone should stay in school until the age of eighteen , considering the significance of primary & secondary level education in a learner's life. to what extent do you agree or disagree , in some cultures, children’s are often told they can achieve anything if they try hard enough. what are the advantages and disadvantages of giving children this message.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Poaching

Essays on Poaching

Types of animal poaching and its consequences, the problem of animal poaching: killings must stop, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Causes of Poaching and How to Stop It

Research on the issue of elephants and poaching, animal poaching and illegal ivory trade, the ethics of bengal tigers, poaching and the illegal trade, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Poaching before and after Independence

The issue of animal poaching and its effects, the problem of animal poaching in africa, mobile biological sensors – a solution to detect animal poaching, relevant topics.

• Animal Testing
• Gun Violence
• Animal Rights
• Cyber Bullying
• Verbal Abuse
• Social Protection Programs
• Police Brutality

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Mapping the research landscape on poaching: a decadal systematic review.

• 1 Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
• 2 International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• 3 Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity University, Noida, India
• 4 The Institute of Heritage Sciences (INCIPIT), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
• 5 The University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Leioa, Spain
• 6 Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, George, South Africa

Poaching is a widespread activity that affects wildlife management goals and undermines conservation efforts worldwide. Despite its complexity, poaching is still commonly addressed by researchers as a one-dimensional phenomenon. To deepen the scientific understanding of poaching, we conducted a systematic literature review in the Web of Science and Scopus databases for the last 10 years, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. We found that most studies were carried out in Africa, although 43% of all articles on poaching were published by researchers from the United States and the United Kingdom. The most studied species are elephants (22%), rhinos (19%), wolves (9%), and bears (6%). Although this study identified a wide range of motives and drivers behind poaching activities, more than half of the analyzed articles do not attempt to provide a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. Its understanding of poaching usually does not go beyond the environmental impact of illegal hunting. Our study’s potential limitations may relate to the focus on exclusively English-language articles and, among them, only those discussing mammal, bird, and reptile species. Our findings indicate that global scientific knowledge on poaching in the last 10 years is biased. There is an imbalance between the developed countries that mostly produce knowledge on poaching (usually from Northern America and Europe) and the developing countries commonly an object of interest. This bias is potentially challenging, as the global scientific knowledge on poaching comes from limited experience based on charismatic species and selective case studies. To overcome this gap and develop a deeper understanding of poaching, the scientific community needs to overcome this bias and address illegal hunting wherever it affects the environment and undermines conservation efforts.

Introduction

Poaching is a global social, cultural, political, economic, and environmental challenge that affects wildlife populations, impedes the achievement of wildlife management goals, and undermines conservation efforts ( Chiarello, 1999 ; Yiming et al., 2003 ; Lemieux and Clarke, 2009 ; Kaczensky et al., 2011 ; Archie and Chiyo, 2012 ). It is commonly referred to as illegal hunting, harvesting, killing, or taking of wildlife ( Musgrave et al., 1993 ; Manel et al., 2002 ; Johannesen and Skonho, 2005 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2020 ), which indicates that poaching is distinguished from hunting by its legal status. Gombay (2014) links the activity with the property rights and norms, whereas Rizzolo et al., 2017 suggest that poaching should include any non-authorized hunting of wild animals despite any ownership rights. Due to different perspectives on poaching, the definition is highly contested ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016 ).

The role of hunting has changed over time, as well as the attitude toward it accordingly. Historically, in many foraging communities, hunting was a key livelihood activity that ensured survival. And yet, hunting became later a symbol of tyranny and moral indignation, especially during the Renaissance ( Cartmill, 1993 ), the “Age of Exploration,” big cat hunting during the period from 1898 until 1930 in Kenya and India ( Storey, 1991 ), or European imperialism and colonialism ( MacKenzie, 1988 ; Grove, 1995 ; van Uhm, 2016 ; Montgomery, 2020 ). On the other hand, hunting has also been used as a symbol of freedom, for instance, after the French Revolution with The August Decrees ( The History Guide, 2004 ) or in Serbia after the Second Uprising against the Ottoman Empire ( Lovački savez Srbije, 2004 ). Poaching at that time did not exist because ordinary people were allowed to hunt. Not only did hunting play a major role in the European imperial experience in Africa and Asia ( MacKenzie, 1988 ), but also, generally, the history of wildlife and nature conservation has been strongly associated with European imperialism ( MacKenzie, 1988 ; Grove, 1995 ). Such military and “biological expansion” of Europe ( Crosby, 1986 ), denominated “ecological imperialism” ( Crosby, 1986 ) or “green imperialism” was manifested in white aristocratic exploration, trade, expansion, power, and access to privileged exotic goods ( MacKenzie, 1988 ; Grove, 1995 ) as well as hunting as a sport in the colonies ( MacKenzie, 1988 ). The fusion of colonial history and conservation history is linked with the exclusion of local communities in the protection and certain restrictions on hunting or even the racial inequalities between Europeans and indigenous hunters ( MacKenzie, 1988 ).

Poaching has deep social and cultural roots, which generates a complex understanding and manifestations of illegal hunting. It was considered as an act of rebellion against hunting privileges or imposed alien cultural values, a form of collective resistance, a violation of culturally determined human–nature interactions and coexistence, or an exercise of traditional rights ( Bell et al., 2007 ). Nowadays, numerous anti-poaching movements are gaining momentum worldwide. According to Rizzolo et al. (2017) , cultural factors can affect poaching because community norms impact how poaching is seen and whether the community responds with tolerance or sanctions. In certain socio-cultural and legal contexts where the community-based conservation model is present, the notions of ‘poaching’ and ‘illegal hunting’ should be distinguished from ‘local hunting’ which is seen as legitimate and as the contestation of the conservation discourse ( Lubilo and Hebinck, 2019 ). Thus, understanding of poaching can change across temporal and spatial scales.

Hunting regulations vary significantly among different countries or regions, making it challenging to recognize poaching levels. Usually, poaching activities are considered illegal because they cause damage to the environment or are unethical or immoral. Hunting practices can also be labeled as poaching due to the diversity of regulations applied or cultural context. For example, trapping small carnivores is common in Hungary, roe deer-driven hunting with dogs is a widespread practice in some parts of Germany, but both these techniques are banned in Serbia, and as such, would be considered as illegal hunting. In contrast, in Brazil and India, hunting is forbidden, where only traditional communities and those suffering from hunger are allowed to hunt, with certain exceptions ( Anonymous., 1972 ; Antunes et al., 2019 ; Bragagnolo et al., 2019 ). Thus, the perception of legal/illegal hunting, actors involved, and motives for poaching are diverse and complex, which results in illegal hunting occurring in different forms worldwide ( Muth and Bowe, 1998 ; Suutarinen and Kojola, 2018 ; Montgomery, 2020 ). Nevertheless, the legal regulation of poaching has to do with imperialism, European socioeconomic interest and interference in species conservation and nature protection, the history of wildlife trade, and the social construction of the value of wildlife ( van Uhm, 2018 ), and thus, the criminalization of wildlife trade which, once legal, became criminalized or “unregulated” ( van Uhm, 2016 ) in the 20th century.

The illicit nature of poaching has made it hard to explore and challenging to monitor ( Yiming et al., 2003 ; Lavadinović et al., 2012 , 2015 ; Montgomery, 2020 ). Efforts to understand and curtail poaching often suffer from what has been called “disciplinary silo thinking” and fail to depict all components of poaching phenomena. Poaching is considered a one-dimensional problem many times ( von Essen et al., 2014 ; Montgomery, 2020 ). Therefore, this study aims to provide a deeper knowledge of poaching and its limitations in the last 10 years (2011–2020). We conducted an assessment of the scientific literature to understand this phenomenon at the global level by collecting data on poachers, the geographic distribution of studies on poaching, wildlife species, and the reasons behind poaching. Our study is limited to mammals, birds, and reptiles because these wildlife species are hunted and poached across all continents and, as such, are suitable for comparison.

Materials and Methods

To meet research goals, we conducted a systematic search of literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework ( Moher et al., 2009 ). We searched for articles from SCOPUS and Web of Science databases on August 16, 2020. For Scopus, the following search string was used: TITLE-ABS-KEY (mammal OR wildlife OR bird OR game OR reptile OR bushmeat) AND (poaching OR “illegal hunting” OR “illegal killing” OR “wildlife crime” OR “wildlife trafficking”) AND (causes OR reasons OR motivations OR perspectives) AND NOT (ocean OR sea OR timber OR fish OR coastal OR marine). In Web of Science, a modified search string with similar search terms was used as follows: ALL = ((mammal OR wildlife OR bird OR game OR reptile OR bushmeat) AND (poaching OR “illegal hunting” OR “illegal killing” OR “wildlife crime” OR “wildlife trafficking”) AND (causes OR reasons OR motivations OR perspectives) NOT (ocean OR sea OR timber OR fish OR coastal OR marine). Only articles published between 2011 and 2020 were selected, which resulted in a total of 1,407 articles. Articles from Web of Science and Scopus were combined, and duplicates were removed, which resulted in a total of 1,082 articles to evaluate. First, we excluded all articles that were clearly unrelated to poaching or the illegal killing of wildlife by reading the titles. Second, we read the abstracts of the articles and discarded articles that were not relevant to our objectives. Lastly, we read the main texts for coding and extraction of information. We only considered articles on mammals, birds, and reptiles due to specific hunting practices and black-market demand. Finally, a total of 211 articles were selected for analysis, which corresponded to 19.5% of the total ( n = 1,082). Supplementary Figure 1 shows the flowchart for the identification, screening, and eligibility for the articles. For each article analyzed, several data were collected ( Supplementary Table 1 ).

Data Analysis

The dataset was prepared in Microsoft Excel v.20. The data were sorted to prepare infographics for understanding the gaps on spatial and temporal scales. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS v.27 for conducting descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and correlation. Data visualization was done using free access Free Web Creator Visme web page (visme.co). To display the location of studies versus the origin of authors/institutions, proportional symbol maps were built in Tableau Desktop v.2020.3, which allows encoding the values per location, with size and/or color. Continent classification was used according to World Population Review (2020) . For performing correlations between the variables, initially, the data on species, drivers, motives, and continents were converted into nominal data, and the numerical assigned to these variables were defined in the variable view of the datasheet. Pearson’s correlation test was performed to check the significance and strength of correlation between the variables. A chi-square test was performed to see if there was any variation in the articles published between the years.

In total, 211 scientific articles published from January 2011 to August 2020 were analyzed. We found a significant variation among articles published between years (χ 2 = 46.109; df = 9; p < 0.05), showing an increasing trend over the years. Approximately 30% of the articles focused on problems of poaching and wildlife management, whereas 20% analyzed poaching as part of wildlife trafficking. The other articles covered various topics related to poaching; among the most common are human–wildlife conflict and poaching as a threat to conservation efforts. Thus, it can be said that approximately 50% of articles attempted to provide a deeper understanding of poaching, whereas the other half was focused on its negative impact on wildlife.

Our analysis shows that poaching is a challenge that is an object of interest for a variety of scientific fields and disciplines ( Supplementary Figure 2 ), such as environmental sciences, biodiversity conservation, ecology, genetics, remote sensing, wildlife management, hunting, economics, sociology, anthropology, political sciences, human dimensions in wildlife management, and law. All identified scientific disciplines were classified according to The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development categories ( OECD, 2007 ). Although the natural sciences’ articles are the most common, social studies also have valuable contributions to knowledge production on the topic. We noticed a high number of articles that combine different scientific disciplines. It is also important to note that even inside fields, research on poaching is increasingly becoming interdisciplinary, especially regarding the methods used. As such, poaching seems to be a complex issue explored by different scientific disciplines.

In our sample, 79% of the studies were conducted in one of the 56 countries identified in this research. The other 11% of the analyzed articles have research locations in more than one country, of which the most numerous are regional studies, followed by global studies. Global studies were twice the number of regional studies. The remaining 10% of the articles from the sample did not have a study in any country in particular. The next step was to analyze only articles with study locations in one country or regional studies within the same continent ( n = 183). In this way, we identified Africa as the most studied continent among the selected articles, as almost half of the performed research were located there (49%) ( Supplementary Figure 3 ). The continents that follow are Asia (21%), Europe (17%), South America (7%), and North and Central America (5%). Australia and Oceania are represented with only one article, which studied poaching in Samoa.

The findings show that the selected articles involve 42% of all South American countries, 33% of African, 29% of Asian, 28% of European, and 17% of all North American countries. Accordingly, the analyzed studies are unevenly distributed per continent, as one-third of European studies origin from Scandinavia ( Supplementary Figure 3 ); two-thirds of South American studies are from Brazil; around two-thirds of Asian studies are located in China or south-eastern Asia; half of the studies in North and Central America are from the United States (US). In Africa, half of the studies are located in the south, which means that around one-quarter of all selected articles analyzed in this research have their studies in one of the following countries: The Republic of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, or Madagascar. In the selected articles, the most popular countries for conducting studies on poaching are the Republic of South Africa (8% of all selected articles), Tanzania (7%), Zimbabwe, and China (6% each). These results indicate the uneven distribution of studies on poaching among continents and countries.

To find out which countries are the most productive on the topic, we analyzed the country of each first authors’ institution. We found that European countries were the most productive, with 77 articles published, followed by North and Central America, with 59 articles, and Africa, with 36 publications, Asia has 22 articles, Australia and Oceania 10, whereas the least productive continent is South America, which published only seven articles ( Supplementary Figure 4 ). The most productive country is the US, which published 26% of all analyzed articles, followed by the United Kingdom (17%) and the Republic of South Africa (7%). In fourth place is Australia, which published 4% of analyzed articles, despite not having any study located on its territory. Other European and North American countries are in similar situations, which suggests a misbalance between the scope of studies produced by developed countries and the number of studies located in their territories.

To identify this mismatch, we developed a coefficient of productivity (C p ) for continents, which we calculated by dividing the number of published articles by the number of studies located on that continent ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Australia and Oceania (C P = 10) showed the highest C P value, which suggests that for each research conducted on this continent, its scientists published 10 more articles on poaching. Australia and Oceania are followed by North and Central America (C P = 6.6) and Europe (C P = 2.4). These continents produced more articles on poaching than the number of studies conducted on its territory. In contrast, Asia, South America, and Africa published fewer articles than the studies they hosted.

Most analyzed articles involve research on particular wildlife species (57%). However, a considerable part (43%) either do not consider specific groups or species, as they address poaching as a broad activity or only briefly mentioned them. Within the first group of articles, we ran an analysis to identify which species are the most explored among researchers. Data show that elephants (22%), rhinos (19%), wolves (9%), and bears (6%) are targeted by more than half of all selected articles, which makes these species the most researched ones ( Supplementary Figure 5 ). Among big cats’ species, the most studied are tigers (5%) and lions (3%), whereas, for bird species, vultures were targeted by 5% of the selected articles and raptors by 3%. In the category “other species,” the most dominant groups are apes, which gather half of this category.

A considerable part of the analyzed articles (43%) do not mention any motives for poaching, but those that do show its diversity. For better visualization, identified motives have been grouped and presented in Supplementary Figure 6 . Income category gathers all motives that aim to improve poachers’ household incomes or gain personal profit in various ways, such as offering bushmeat or parts of the animals in the black market, in some cases even capturing live animals to be sold like pets. These motives are the most discussed in the selected articles, which deal with this aspect of poaching. In second place is the category multiple motives, which are combined on a different basis from other categories, and which overlap. This category suggests that poaching is a complex human activity that is performed for more than one reason. Conflict with wild animals and subsidence are also identified as the commonly discussed topics in the selected articles. Poachers who hunt wild animals for the trophy (category trophy) and various acts of rebellion or opposition against authorities (category political) gather the same number of articles. We find it interesting that several articles identified male affirmation and thrill as reasons for poaching. They are considered inside the category others.

More than half of the articles (55.4%) do not discuss any drivers of poaching activities at all. Among those which do (44.6%), we identified in total 35 different drivers, which are mentioned various times. We grouped drivers into five categories to make them easier for comparison, although this approach potentially limits their diversity. The social–economic drivers are the most discussed ( n = 68), followed by political ( n = 19), social–cultural ( n = 15), and ecological ones ( n = 8). The remaining drivers ( n = 12) have been gathered in the category others ( Supplementary Figure 7 ). Among the socioeconomic drivers, the most common is the personal search for an increase in income (40%), the black-market demand for wild animals and their parts (example: illegal trade, organized crime, and corporations) (26%), poverty (15%), and providing food security (7%). In the category of social–cultural drivers, the most numerous are culture/traditions in general (47%), demand for ingredients for medicine (13%), and tradition and traditional rights (13%). From the political drivers, the most mentioned are fragile state security, wars and terrorism (37%), the lack of specific programs and enforcement for poaching (21%), and corruption (21%). Category ecological drivers consist of species availability (50%) and seasons (25%, e.g., people usually poach more in the dry season). In the category of others, the most numerous driver is accessibility (42%).

In the interest of providing deeper knowledge on poaching, we tested correlations between different variables from the analyzed articles. Only two analyses provided statistically significant and positive correlations between species and motives ( r = 0.14; p < 0.05) and between drivers and motives ( r = 0.25; p < 0.01). However, both correlations are weak, so we did not go into further analysis.

There are a few caveats that we recommend readers consider in the interpretation of our results. This study covers only journal articles, although there are likely other literature sources that provide valuable knowledge on poaching. For the systematic review, we used Web of Science and Scopus databases exclusively, despite the possibility that they will not provide us insight into all available and relevant literature on poaching. Although we focused only on English-language publications, we acknowledge the existence of relevant literature in other languages. Because this study is limited to birds, mammals, and reptile species, there are likely studies on other species that we did not consider. Moreover, it should be underlined that the literature search was conducted in August 2020; hence, any literature on poaching published after our data search was not considered.

Being a complex issue, poaching has been of interest to many different scientific disciplines. Although natural sciences are better represented, social sciences and humanities, likewise articles that combine several scientific disciplines, have gained space in recent years. These results suggest that understanding poaching requires the involvement of a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines, which has to contribute from different aspects to understand this problem.

Our findings reveal an uneven spatial distribution of studies on poaching for both their origin and study location. Researchers showed particular interest in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and China, which could be explained by significant poaching and trafficking activities in these regions ( Lemieux and Clarke, 2009 ; Liu et al., 2011 ; Gao and Clark, 2014 ; Zhou et al., 2018 ; Coleman et al., 2019 ; Lunstrum and Giva, 2020 ). This finding contrasts with the report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2020) , which demonstrates that every country in the world plays a role in combating wildlife crime. Martin et al. (2012) find that geographical biases are common in ecological studies in general. Thus, it is likely that regions identified in our study are for researchers more attractive than the others.

We noticed in our findings another bias regarding the origin of the published articles. The most productive continents are Northern America and Europe, whereas the most productive countries are the US, United Kingdom, The Republic of South Africa, and Australia. Researchers from these countries published more articles on poaching than the rest of the world in the last decade. The productivity found for these countries is in accordance with other authors’ findings within different research topics ( Falagas et al., 2006 ; Soteriades et al., 2006 ; Ribeiro et al., 2019 ). Despite having the most productive researchers, both North America and Europe have fewer studies on their territories than other continents. This is even more evident among the most productive countries. For all these Anglo-Saxon countries, except R. The Republic of South Africa, it is common to have researchers who published more articles on poaching in other parts of the world than in their own countries. Boshoff (2009) found in his research strong dependence of African researchers on their European colleagues, which he describes as neo-colonial science. Malhado et al. (2014) , in their study, found that “scientific imperialism” is still present in the case of Amazonia. Many researchers agree that colonial legacy plays an important role in developing countries in many aspects, including wildlife conservation ( Mkumbukwa, 2008 ; Bluwstein, 2018 ; Infante-Amate and Krausman, 2019 ). Greater researchers’ interests in poaching in former colonies than in their own homeland could be compared with Britain’s role in nature conservation during the late Victorian period when the country imposed its control in other parts of the world ( MacKenzie, 1990 ). Malhado et al. (2014) consider that foreign influence in Amazonia is decreasing, but it still plays an important role, despite local researchers’ capacities being sufficient to deal with their countries’ conservation challenges. We believe that international cooperation is essential to combat poaching efficiently and wildlife trafficking, as long it does not neglect other regions nor diminish the sovereignty of the countries or tries to impose a “one model fits all” approach. Still, our findings indicate that in practice, these relationships are built in a “one-way” direction because the leading countries do not have studies on their territory performed by foreign researchers if they are not affiliated with national institutions.

Our findings demonstrate the imbalance between the publishing of “Northern” countries and the number of studies conducted in “Southern” ones. Commonly, it is considered that the “North” has adequate knowledge to resolve challenges that the “South” faces. However, Sollund and Runhovde (2020) offer the example of Norway, which failed to confront the illegal wildlife trade. The same authors raise concern that the northern countries have expectations regarding conservation in southern countries that they themselves neglect. Goyes et al. (2019) exemplify why global dialogs are crucial in combating international wildlife trafficking, as it is not possible to understand challenges in one region of the world without understanding what happens in the others. According to the same author, it is not productive nor efficient to use northern theories and narratives to understand southern problems to help marginalized southern communities. This northern domination of research relevant to poaching and limited research led and published by southern researchers in southern countries relates to the “North–South divide” or its variations the “North–South gap” and “North–South cleavage” ( Eckl and Weber, 2007 ). The global North–South divide in research has become an established discourse in scholarly writing and has been highlighted in various scientific disciplines and fields, such as climate change ( Blicharska et al., 2017 ), health research ( Walsh et al., 2016 ; Kok et al., 2017 ), conservation studies, and sustainable development ( Jeffery et al., 2008 ). Having said that, we should acknowledge that the outcomes related to this North–South dichotomy in research on poaching will be similar or equivalent in the case of any other research topic. Building on the framework of postcolonial theory ( Hammer, 2005 ), we argue that the research interest on poaching of the north in the south is grounded in the interconnection between European exploration, imperial experience, power, trade, and wildlife conservation. Poaching thus must be regarded within the historical and imperialist context of European colonialism and postcolonial discourse on nature conservation ( Singh and van Houtum, 2002 ).

Black markets have various demands for animal species, which can increase poaching pressure on wildlife and undermine management plans or conservation efforts ( Ribeiro et al., 2019 ; Scheffers et al., 2019 ; Morcatty et al., 2020 ). The report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime confirms that nearly 6,000 species are targeted for poaching and illegal trade, whereas no single species was responsible for more than 5% of seized incidents in the last 20 years ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020 ). Thus, we expected that the scientific community would have an interest in a wide range of species affected by poaching. However, our findings show a strong bias toward charismatic species. Half of the analyzed articles on poaching target only three wildlife species, such as elephants, rhinos, and wolves, of which two are found in Africa. Nevertheless, we believe that concern for these species’ survival is not the only reason behind their popularity in the scientific community. It is in accordance with Redpath et al. (2017) , who found out that large carnivores in Europe and North America are the most intensively monitored and studied large mammals in the world. It is likely because researchers are more attached to iconic species and tend to study them more ( Fleming and Bateman, 2016 ; Fink et al., 2020 ). These species identified in our study are considered to be charismatic and, as such, are used to attract public attention, receive more research interest, and policy coverage ( Courchamp et al., 2018 ; Sibarani et al., 2019 ; Thompson and Rog, 2019 ). Lundberg et al. (2020) consider charismatic species to be an effective fundraising tool, which likely attracts researchers to study them.

It should also be taken into consideration that there are research priorities among scientists. Ellison and Degrassi (2017) suggest that some species, such as flagship ones, are considered to be more valuable than others in conservation efforts and, as such, attract more attention. Despite not necessarily agreeing with this statement, we acknowledge it could be considered a criterion for a selection. On the other hand, the main reason that makes these species to be considered flag species and attract interest and empathy among scientists, ENGOs, policymakers, and the public is the same one that makes them remain severely endangered ( Courchamp et al., 2018 ). Besides charismatic species, researchers’ interest is focused on human–wildlife conflict/human–wildlife coexistence, which we found to be specially related to wolves and birds of prey. Our findings are in accordance with Lavadinović et al. (2017) , who found that wolf poaching is an especially popular topic among Scandinavian researchers. In our sample, Scandinavian authors produced one-third of all European articles on poaching. Human–wildlife conflict exacerbates hostility toward wildlife and has become a major threat to species conservation ( Anand and Radhakrishna, 2017 ). However, it is difficult to estimate its scope, as retaliatory killing is widespread among common farmers worldwide ( Konig et al., 2020 ).

Approximately half of the studies did not provide any insights into poachers’ motives to hunt illegally. We noticed that many articles often do not go beyond general suggestions, which is not sufficient for a deeper understanding of poaching. Motives behind poaching identified in this study, such as income, subsistence, or trophy, among others, are in accordance with findings of Muth and Bowe (1998) . However, the categorization of motives in our study is different, as we grouped them according to the sample size. Muth and Bowe (1998) , for example, identified thrill killing as a separate motive for poaching, whereas in our study, it is placed in group others. Our results demonstrate that in analyzed articles, financial gain and human–wildlife coexistence were the most discussed reasons for poaching. Another finding is that motives for poaching commonly overlap. It is in accordance with Montgomery (2020) , who identified between poachers’ motives “innumerable subcategories.” 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. Our findings support Montgomery (2020) , who advocates for the recognition of the complexity of poaching as a vital step to align conservation practice and social justice effectively. As such, a deeper analysis is still needed to deconstruct the poaching phenomenon ( von Essen et al., 2014 ). Correspondingly, we believe qualitative studies, particularly anthropological and sociological ones, might offer further insights into the biological, economic, and socio-political motives for poaching. Further to the debate surrounding poaching motives, the absence of a universally accepted definition of poaching ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016 ) makes it challenging to understand this complex issue better. Hence, previously quoted authors indicate not only how deep roots and diverse character poaching has but also how its forms and meanings are multi-layered ( Bell et al., 2007 ). In the same way, Bell et al. (2007) ground poaching in the collective identity, Brymer (1991) rethinks poaching and hunting as a “deviant subculture,” whereas Eliason (1999 , 2003) looks at poaching from the philosophical perspective intending to identify “wildlife law violators” and deeper roots of such behavior.

The majority of analyzed studies from our sample consider poaching as an environmental threat ( Chiarello, 1999 ; Yiming et al., 2003 ; Lemieux and Clarke, 2009 ; Kaczensky et al., 2011 ; Archie and Chiyo, 2012 ). However, poaching has a more complex and far-reaching influence because it is, along with illegal wildlife trade, a part of wildlife crime ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020 ), environmental or green crime ( Hall et al., 2016 ; van Uhm, 2018 ). As such, poaching affects climate change and biodiversity ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020 ). According to the same source, wildlife crime also impacts national security, social–economic development, and public health. Profits from wildlife crime support the rise of organized crime, spread corruption, obstruct justice, and often involve government officials in various scope and at various levels ( Hauenstein et al., 2019 ; Titeca, 2019 ; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020 ). Moreover, a wildlife crime has a negative influence on fragile governments, which can participate in wildlife crime activities and businesses. In such a manner, illicit activities are camouflaged under legitimate companies, making the control of wildlife crime even more challenging ( van Uhm and Nijman, 2020 ). Scientists also associate poaching with armed conflicts and terrorism ( Beyers et al., 2011 ; Rotshuizen and Smith, 2013 ; Haenlein et al., 2016 ). Thus, poaching’s negative consequences go beyond environmental challenges and, in various forms, impose threats to society and stability worldwide ( Lavorgna, 2014 ). The complexity of wildlife crime and its severe negative impacts on both nature and society raise the need for adequate measures to curb poaching. Among analyzed studies, we noticed that implementation of more intensive wildlife monitoring and game protection is discussed. It also includes better trained and equipped gamekeepers to combat poaching. Green militarization is a commonly addressed issue in studies on poaching in the last decade. Militarized conservation has increased worldwide in the past decade, although it is still understudied ( Duffy, 2014 ; Lunstrum, 2014 ). Thus, researchers highlight the importance of engaging critically with the militarization of conservation, as it frequently produces unforeseen consequences ( Lunstrum, 2014 ; Duffy et al., 2019 ). Duffy et al. (2019) identified five major themes emerging as critiques to militarized conservation, which include understanding the ways that local communities experience militarized conservation; how the militarization of conservation can contribute to violence; where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and how it fits in with and reflects wider political–economic dynamics. Massé et al. (2018) propose closer interaction between military studies and the political–ecological work on green militarization to provide more adequate solutions in combating wildlife crimes.

Final Considerations

Our findings suggest that knowledge on poaching motivations and drivers in the last decade is spatially biased. Studies are mostly led by researchers affiliated with institutions from developed countries, although most of such studies are usually conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa or few other popular regions. Scientists like to study charismatic species such as elephants, rhinos, wolves, or few others. However, there are many other parts of the world with high biodiversity and many more poached species or are killed for illegal trade, but not many studies have been conducted in the last decade. In other words, knowledge on poaching in the last decade is based on selective studies, narrow findings, and limited information. Nevertheless, it still shapes actions on illegal activities or biodiversity protection on a global scale. To better understand these threats, it is necessary to study them everywhere they occur and affect biodiversity or undermine conservation efforts. If it is not a case, like it is in our study, obtained knowledge is not sufficient to support action in many regions of the world.

Findings from this study confirm that poaching is a complex issue that occurs in different forms and various reasons. As such, it has a severe impact on the environment. Although poaching is explored in many scientific disciplines or applied fields, it is usually considered as a threat to conservation efforts, and most studies do not go beyond the evaluation of its negative impacts. Thus, it seems that the analyzed scientific knowledge is not sufficient to develop efficient measures against poaching. Only a limited number of studies from our sample tend to provide a deeper understanding of poaching by analyzing underlying motives and drivers. Considering spatial limitations, there is a concern that available knowledge on poaching is not applicable in other parts of the world. Besides, poaching seems to be a complex social–environmental problem, which integrates innumerable dimensions. It is increasingly important for researchers, NGOs, and policymakers to have an understanding of the social–ecological systems they study, to be deeply involved in generating information and decision-making for combating poaching and illegal trade in their countries. These issues should not be delegated to other nations, but they need to include them when they can contribute. There is a greater need for research to overcome geographical biases and geopolitical relationships to provide the knowledge necessary to combat poaching and wildlife trafficking at the global and local levels.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Author Contributions

VL and CI analyzed part of the data and contributed to all sections of the manuscript. MC designed the method, analyzed part of the data, ran statistical tests, contributed to discussion, and prepared the references. NM prepared figures, contributed to introduction, discussion and the final version of the manuscript, and critically revised the manuscript. MM ran the literature review, prepared the section “Materials and Methods,” and did the proofreading. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We want to express our gratitude to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) for bringing authors together and supporting our research interests. Moreover, we thank their institutional affiliations. NM is grateful to the Institute of Heritage Sciences INCIPIT CSIC, her supervisors César Parcero-Oubiña and Cristina Sánchez-Carretero, the MSCA-ITN Project “Critical Heritage Studies and the Future of Europe—CHEurope,” and the University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.630990/full#supplementary-material

Anand, S., and Radhakrishna, S. (2017). Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: is conflict escalation real or imagined? J. Asia Pac. Biodivers 10, 154–161. doi: 10.1016/j.japb.2017.02.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anonymous. (1972). The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Available online at: http://moef.gov.in/ , (accessed 12 September 2020)

Google Scholar

Antunes, A. P., Rebêlo, G. H., Pezzuti, J. C. B., de Mattos Vieira, M. A. R., Constantino, P. D. A. L., Campos-Silva, J. V., et al. (2019). A conspiracy of silence: subsistence hunting rights in the Brazilian Amazon. Land. Use Policy 84, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.045

Archie, E. A., and Chiyo, P. I. (2012). Elephant behaviour and conservation: social relationships, the effects of poaching, and genetic tools for management. Mol. Ecol. 21, 765–778. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05237.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bell, S., Hampshire, K., and Topalidou, S. (2007). The political culture of poaching: a case study from northern Greece. Biodivers Conserv. 16, 399–418. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-3371-y

Beyers, R. L., Hart, J. A., Sinclair, A. R., Grossmann, F., Klinkenberg, B., and Dino, S. (2011). Resource wars and conflict ivory: the impact of civil conflict on elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo-the case of the Okapi Reserve. PLoS One 6:e27129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027129

Blicharska, M., Smithers, R., Kuchler, M., Agrawal, G. K., Gutiérrez, J. M., Hassanali, A., et al. (2017). Steps to overcome the North–South divide in research relevant to climate change policy and practice. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 21–27. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3163

Bluwstein, J. (2018). From colonial fortresses to neoliberal landscapes in Northern Tanzania: a biopolitical ecology of wildlife conservation. J. Polit. Ecol. 25, 144–168. doi: 10.2458/v25i1.22865

Boshoff, N. (2009). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics 81:413. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2211-8

Bragagnolo, C., Gama, G. M., Vieira, F. A., Campos-Silva, J. V., Bernard, E., Malhado, A. C. M., et al. (2019). Hunting in Brazil: what are the options? Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17, 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2019.03.001

Brymer, R. A. (1991). The emergence and maintenance of a deviant sub-culture: the case of hunting/poaching sub-culture. Anthropologica 33, 177–194. doi: 10.2307/25605608

Cartmill, M. (1993). A View to Death in the Morning. Hunting and Nature Through History. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 331.

Chiarello, A. G. (1999). Effects of fragmentation of the Atlantic forest on mammal communities in south-eastern Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 89, 71–82. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(98)00130-x

Coleman, J. L., Ascher, J. S., Bickford, D., Buchori, D., Cabanban, A., Chisholm, R. A., et al. (2019). Top 100 research questions for biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia. Biol. Conserv. 234, 211–220. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.028

Courchamp, F., Jaric, I., Albert, C., Meinard, Y., Ripple, W. J., and Chapron, G. (2018). The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 16:e2003997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997

Crosby, A. (1986). Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duffy, R. (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. Int. Aff. 90, 819–834. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12142

Duffy, R., Masse, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Bűscher, B., Verweijen, J., et al. (2019). Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biol. Conserv. 232, 66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.013

Eckl, J., and Weber, R. (2007). North: South? Pitfalls of dividing the world by words. Third World Q. 28, 3–23. doi: 10.1080/01436590601081732

Eliason, S. L. (1999). The illegal taking of wildlife: toward a theoretical understanding of poaching. Hum. Dimens. Wild. 4, 27–39. doi: 10.1080/10871209909359149

Eliason, S. L. (2003). Illegal hunting and angling: the neutralization of wildlife law violations. Soc. Anima. 11, 225–243. doi: 10.1163/156853003322773032

Ellison, A. M., and Degrassi, A. L. (2017). All species are important, but some species are more important than others. J. Veg. Sci. 28, 669–671. doi: 10.1111/jvs.12566

Falagas, M. E., Papastamataki, P. A., and Bliziotis, I. A. (2006). A bibliometric analysis of research productivity in Parasitology by different world regions during a 9-year period (1995–2003). BMC Infect Dis. 6:56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-6-56

Fink, C., Hausmann, A., and Di Minin, E. (2020). Online sentiment towards iconic species. Biol. Conserv. 241:108289. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108289

Fleming, P. A., and Bateman, P. W. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly: which Australian terrestrial mammal species attract most research? Mam. Rev. 46, 241–254. doi: 10.1111/mam.12066

Gao, Y., and Clark, S. G. (2014). Elephant ivory trade in China: trends and drivers. Biol. Conser. 180, 23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.020

Gombay, N. (2014). ‘Poaching’–What’s in a name? Debates about law, property, and protection in the context of settler colonialism. Geoforum 55, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.04.010

Goyes, D. R., Sollund, R., and South, N. (2019). Towards global green criminological dialogues: voices from the Americas and Europe. Int. J. Crime Justice Soc. Democr. 8, 1–5. doi: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i3.1240

Grove, R. H. (1995). Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism 1600–1860. Cambridge University Press.

Haenlein, C., Maguire, T., and Somerville, K. (2016). III. Poaching, wildlife trafficking and terrorism. Whitehall Papers 86, 58–76. doi: 10.1080/02681307.2016.1252126

Hall, M., Nurse, A., Potter, G. R., and Wyatt, T. (2016). “The geography of environmental crime,” in The Geography of Environmental Crime . 1–10. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-53843-7_1

Hammer, R. (2005). “Postcolonialism,” in Encyclopedia of Social Theory , ed G. Ritzer 577–578. doi: 10.4135/9781412952552.n219

Hauenstein, S., Kshatriya, M., Blanc, J., Dormann, C. F., and Beale, C. M. (2019). African elephant poaching rates correlate with local poverty, national corruption and global ivory price. Nat. Commun. 10:2242. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09993-2

Infante-Amate, J., and Krausman, F. (2019). Trade, ecologically unequal exchange and colonial legacy: the case of france and its former colonies (1962-2015). Ecol. Econ. 156, 98–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.013

International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020). Glossary. Available online at: https://www.iucn.org/downloads/en_iucn__glossary_definitions.pdf . (accessed in October, 2020)

Jeffery, M., Firestone, J., and Bubna-Litic, K. (eds) (2008). Biodiversity Conservation, Law and Livelihoods: Bridging the North-South Divide: IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Research Studies (IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Research Studies). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551161

Johannesen, A. B., and Skonho, A. (2005). Tourism, poaching and wildlife conservation: what can integrated conservation and development projects accomplish? Resour. Energy Econ. 27, 208–226. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2004.10.001

Kaczensky, P., Jerina, K., Jonozovic, M., Krofel, M., Skrbinsek, T., Rauer, G., et al. (2011). ‘Illegal killings may hamper brown bear recovery in the Eastern Alps’. Ursus 22, 37–46. doi: 10.2192/ursus-d-10-00009.1

Kok, M. O., Gyapong, J. O., Wolffers, I., Ofori-Adjei, D., and Ruitenberg, E. J. (2017). Towards fair and effective North-South collaboration: realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research. Health Res. Policy Syst. 15:96. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0251-3

Konig, H. J., Kiffner, C., Kramer-Schadt, S., Furst, C., Keuling, O., and Fordm, A. T. (2020). Human-wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conserv. Biol. 34, 786–794. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13513

Lavadinović, V., Glikman, A. J., and Schraml, U. (2017). Current role, importance and characteristics of Human Dimensions in Wildlife management, a preliminary assessment from European and North American scientific journals. Balkan J. Wildlife Res. 4, 21–28. doi: 10.15679/bjwr.v4i1

Lavadinović, V., Popović, Z., Ranković, N., and Radosavljević, A. (2015). Can the scope of poaching be predicted on the basis of existed parameters? Balkan J. Wildlife Res. 2, 1–8.

Lavadinović, V., Ranković, N., Petrović, N., and Radosavljević, A. (2012). “Poaching in Serbia: Factor analysis,” in Proceedings of the International Symposum on Hunting - Moderns Aspects of Sustainable Management of Game Population. Zemun-Belgrade, Serbia, 22-24. June 2012. Zemun-Belgrade, Agriculture faculty , (Serbia: University of Belgrade), 164–167.

Lavorgna, A. (2014). Wildlife trafficking in the Internet age. Crime Sci. 3:5.

Lemieux, A. M., and Clarke, R. V. (2009). The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa. Br. J. Criminol. 49, 451–471. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azp030

Liu, F., McShea, W. J., Garshelis, D. L., Zhu, X., Wang, D., and Shao, L. (2011). Human-wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: factors driving the poaching of bears in China. Biol. Conser. 144, 538–547. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.009

Lovački savez Srbije (2004). Istorijat – Prvih 100 godina. Available online at: http://www.ecolss.com/prvih_sto_godina.htm (accessed 5 November 2012)

Lubilo, R., and Hebinck, P. (2019). ‘Local hunting’ and community-based natural resource management in Namibia: contestations and livelihoods. Geoforum 101, 62–75. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.020

Lundberg, P., Veríssimo, D., Vainio, A., and Arponen, A. (2020). Preferences for different flagship types in fundraising for nature conservation. Biol. Conserv. 250, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108738

Lunstrum, E. (2014). Green militarization: anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 104, 816–832. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2014.912545

Lunstrum, E., and Giva, N. (2020). What drives commercial poaching? From poverty to economic inequality. Biol. Conser. 245:108505. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108505

Lynch, M. J., Stretesky, P. B., and Long, M. A. (2017). Blaming the poor for biodiversity loss: a political economic critique of the study of poaching and wildlife trafficking. J. Poverty Soc. Justice 25, 263–275. doi: 10.1332/175982717x14877669275083

MacKenzie, J. (1988). The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

MacKenzie, J. M. (1990). Imperialism and the Natural World. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 216.

Malhado, A. C. M., de Azevedo, R. S. D., Todd, P. A., Santos, A. M. C., Fabré, N. N., Batista, V. S., et al. (2014). Geographic and temporal trends in amazonian knowledge production. Biotropica 46, 6–13. doi: 10.1111/btp.12079

Manel, S., Berthier, P., and Luikart, G. (2002). Detecting wildlife poaching: identifying the origin of individuals with bayesian assignment tests and multilocus genotypes. Con. Biol. 16, 650–659. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00576.x

Martin, L. J., Blossey, B., and Ellis, E. (2012). Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 195–201. doi: 10.1890/110154

Massé, F., Lunstrum, E., and Holterman, D. (2018). Linking green militarization and critical military studies. Crit. Mil. Stud. 4, 201–221. doi: 10.1080/23337486.2017.1412925

Mkumbukwa, A. R. (2008). The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Tanzania during the colonial and post-independence periods. Dev. South. Africa 25, 589–600. doi: 10.1080/03768350802447875

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys. Ther. 89, 873–880. doi: 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873

Montgomery, R. A. (2020). Poaching is not one big thing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 472–475. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.02.013

Morcatty, T., Macedo, J. C. B., Nekaris, K. A. I., Ni, Q., Durigan, C., Svensson, M. S., et al. (2020). Illegal trade in wild cats and its link to Chinese-led development in Central and South America. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1525–1535. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13498

Musgrave, R. S., Parker, S., and Wolok, M. (1993). The status of poaching in The United States—are we protecting our wildlife? Nat. Resour. J. 33, 977–1014.

Muth, R. M., and Bowe, J. F. Jr. (1998). Illegal harvest of renewable natural resources in North America: toward a typology of the motivations for poaching. Soc. Nat. Resour. 11, 9–24. doi: 10.1080/08941929809381058

OECD (2007). The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Annual Report 2007. Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/38528123.pdf

Redpath, S. M., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A., et al. (2017). Don’t forget to look down – collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biol. Rev. 92, 2157–2163. doi: 10.1111/brv.12326

Ribeiro, J., Reino, L., Schindler, S., Strubbe, D., Vall-llosera, M., Araújo, M. B., et al. (2019). Trends in legal and illegal trade of wild birds: a global assessment based on expert knowledge. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 3343–3369. doi: 10.1007/s10531-019-01825-5

Rizzolo, J. B., Gore, M. L., Ratsimbazafy, J. H., and Rajaonson, A. (2017). Cultural influences on attitudes about the causes and consequences of wildlife poaching. Crime Law Soc. Change 67, 415–437. doi: 10.1007/s10611-016-9665-z

Rotshuizen, S., and Smith, M. L. R. (2013). Of warriors, poachers and peacekeepers: protecting wildlife after conflict. Coop. Conflict 48, 502–521. doi: 10.1177/0010836713487277

Scheffers, B. R., Oliveira, B. F., Lamb, I., and Edwards, D. P. (2019). Global wildlife trade across the tree of life. Science 366, 71–76. doi: 10.1126/science.aav5327

Sibarani, M. C., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., and Kark, S. (2019). Measuring the surrogacy potential of charismatic megafauna species across taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity on a megadiverse island. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1220–1231. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13360

Singh, J., and van Houtum, H. (2002). Post-colonial nature conservation in Southern Africa: same emperors, new clothes? GeoJournal 58, 253–263. doi: 10.1023/B:GEJO.0000017956.82651.41

Sollund, R. A., and Runhovde, S. R. (2020). Responses to wildlife crime in post-colonial times. who fares best? Br. J. Criminol. 60, 1014–1033. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azaa005

Soteriades, E. S., Rosmarakis, E. S., Paraschakis, K., and Falagas, M. E. (2006). Research contribution of different world regions in the top 50 biomedical journals (1995–2002). FASEB J. 20, 29–34. doi: 10.1096/fj.05-4711lsf

Storey, W. (1991). Big cats and imperialism: lion and tiger hunting in Kenya and Northern India, 1898-1930. J. World History 2, 135–173.

Suutarinen, J., and Kojola, I. (2018). One way or another: predictors of wolf poaching in a legally harvested wolf population. Anim. Conserv. 21, 414–422. doi: 10.1111/acv.12409Webb

The History Guide (2004). The Decree of August 4, 1789. Available online at: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/august4.html (accessed 26 July 2013)

Thompson, B. S., and Rog, S. M. (2019). Beyond ecosystem services: using charismatic megafauna as flagship species for mangrove forest conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 102, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.009

Titeca, K. (2019). Illegal ivory trade as transnational organized crime? an empirical study into ivory traders in Uganda. Br. J. Criminol. 59, 24–44. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azy009

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2016). World Wildlife Crime Report - Trafficking in protected species. Available online at: https:// www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/World_Wildlife_Crime_Report_2016_final.pdf (accessed 12 August 2019)

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2020). World Wildlife Crime Report - Trafficking in protected species. Available online at: https:// https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/2020/World_Wildlife_Report_2020_9July.pdf (accessed 02 February 2021)

van Uhm, D. P. (2016). The Illegal Wildlife Trade: Inside the World of Poachers, Smugglers and Traders. Cham: Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42129-2

van Uhm, D. P. (2018). The social construction of the value of wildlife: a green cultural criminological perspective. Theor. Criminol. 22, 384–401. doi: 10.1177/1362480618787170

van Uhm, D. P., and Nijman, R. C. C. (2020). The convergence of environmental crime with other serious crimes: subtypes within the environmental crime continuum. Eur. J. Criminol. doi: 10.1177/1477370820904585

von Essen, E., Hansen, H. P., Nordström Källström, H., Peterson, M. N., and Peterson, T. R. (2014). Deconstructing the poaching phenomenon: a review of typologies for understanding illegal hunting. Br. J. Criminol. 54, 632–651. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azu022

Walsh, A., Brugha, R., and Byrne, E. (2016). “The way the country has been carved up by researchers”: ethics and power in north–south public health research. Int. J. Equity Health 15:204. doi: 10.1186/s12939-016-0488-4

World Population Review (2020). List of Countries by Continent 2020. Available online at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/list-of-countries-by-continent (accessed 25th August 2020).

Yiming, L., Zhongwei, G., Qisen, Y., Yushan, W., and Niemelä, J. (2003). The implications of poaching for giant panda conservation. Biol. Conserv. 111, 125–136. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00255-0

Zhou, X., Wang, Q., Zhang, W., Jin, Y., Wang, Z., Chai, Z., et al. (2018). Elephant poaching and the ivory trade: the impact of demand reduction and enforcement efforts by China from 2005 – 2017. Glob. Ecol. Conser. 16:e00486. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00486

Keywords : poaching, wildlife, charismatic species, motives, drivers, Systematic review, PRISMA methodology

Citation: Lavadinović VM, Islas CA, Chatakonda MK, Marković N and Mbiba M (2021) Mapping the Research Landscape on Poaching: A Decadal Systematic Review. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9:630990. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.630990

Received: 18 November 2020; Accepted: 03 March 2021; Published: 17 May 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Lavadinović, Islas, Chatakonda, Marković and Mbiba. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Vukan M. Lavadinović, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Poaching is more than an Enforcement Problem

• University of Oxford

• University of Kent

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Siri L. A. Öckerman
• Samantha H. Cheng
• Jake E. Bicknell

• Paul Zyambo

• Eustarckio Kazonga
• CONSERV BIOL
• Anita Kar Yan Wan

• María Daniela Pineda

• Michael ʼt Sas‐Rolfes
• Jennifer Gooden
• V.M. Sathish Kumar
• Manish Chandra Patel
• Prashant Sadashiv Mavarakar

• Nisha Dhull

• Chris Wilcox

• Domingo Hoces R.

• C. Perrings

• R.W.G. Jenkins

• M.E. Zimmerman
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Poaching and the problem with conservation in Africa (commentary)

Share this article.

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• Poaching is a complex topic that cannot be solved by myopic, top-down enforcement approaches. Crime syndicates may be fuelling the poaching of elephant and rhino but they are not the source of the problem. Rather than treat the symptoms by spending millions on weapons and anti-poaching forces, which experience has repeatedly shown does not stop poaching, there is a need to understand the underlying causes of the poaching problem if it is to be solved.
• Across Africa, state-led anti-poaching forces, no matter how well funded and equipped, have been unable to curtail the high levels of poaching currently observed.

Devolving power and benefits to local communities will enable local communities to acquire full responsibility for anti-poaching operations, which they are much better positioned to do than external agencies who do not have the social networks and local knowledge needed to effectively perform oversight functions in the local area. As witnessed in the Luangwa Valley and Namibian conservancies, there is every likelihood that there will be a significant decline in poaching once community conservation is properly implemented.

• This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.

Poaching is threatening wildlife conservation in Africa. Elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) and rhino ( Ceratotherium simum and Diceros bicornis ) populations have been devastated and the bush meat trade is severely impacting wildlife populations. Who is to blame? Will international funding of anti-poaching forces help to solve the problem?

Crime syndicates may be fuelling the poaching of elephant and rhino but they are not the source of the problem. Rather than treat the symptoms by spending millions on weapons and anti-poaching forces, which experience has repeatedly shown does not stop poaching, there is a need to understand the underlying causes of the poaching problem if it is to be solved.

Kruger National Park in South Africa, which spends over $13.5 million annually on anti-poaching, has the most highly-trained and dedicated anti-poaching force in Africa, including dividing the park into 22 sections , each with its own section ranger and a team of field rangers, use of dog tracker packs, helicopter support, and the South African defense force to offer assistance. Yet with all this money spent and all the manpower effort, 504, 421 and 327 rhino were poached in Kruger in 2017, 2018 and 2019 , respectively. Although the number of poached rhinos is going down each year, it is partly because there are fewer and fewer rhinos left to poach, with their numbers having declined exponentially in Kruger since 2011. This underscores our point that if all the money spent on the massive, highly coordinated anti-poaching effort in Kruger cannot prevent the poaching of rhino, how much more difficult will it be to save elephant and rhino populations in other African countries that do not have access to this sort of funding?

For example, in spite of all the efforts of national defence forces and wildlife departments, elephant numbers are in a catastrophic decline . The main mandate of the Botswana Defence Force is anti-poaching. Yet, they have been unable to curb rhino and bush meat poaching in Botswana. So why is poaching such a problem?

In his paper “Everyday Forms of Resistance,” Professor James Scott, a political scientist at Yale, outlined the reasons for poaching and why it is so difficult to control. Scott noted that poaching (as a form of resistance) metamorphoses into a form of class conflict between the local, rural disenfranchised class and the external, affluent class. We need to first understand that, local people across Africa were moved out to create protected areas (PAs). Today, international tourism companies and national governments make millions from the resources (wildlife and scenery) within these PAs while local communities are pushed to the periphery and do not benefit from them. The disenfranchisement of the Maasai in both Kenya and Tanzania is a case in point and well known; a recent article on this issue was recently published right here on Mongabay.com .

Evidence of local communities’ displacement abound. For instance, the book Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement, and Sustainable Development provides many case studies, highlighting the devastating effects of displacement by PAs on peoples’ livelihoods through the ensuing loss of access to traditional resources and adaptive strategies, such as key forage resources for livestock in wetlands during drought years.

To make things worse, not only do local communities not benefit from conservation, but they are confronted with a serious challenge of having to contend with conflict with wildlife. Marauding elephants damage farmers’ crops and kill people . Lions and other carnivores kill people and their livestock, while wildlife-related diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, only translate to receiving a pittance for the sale of livestock as compared to regions where wildlife is absent. Thus, local communities are carrying a very heavy burden of conservation while elites carry very little of the burden, resulting in the cost-benefit ratio of conservation being strongly skewed in favor of tourism companies, national governments, and the international conservation community.

While this situation is not ethically and morally acceptable, it is also not in any way sustainable. A recent article in the Ngami Times, “Okavango Delta robbed to feed the rich” (January 17-24, 2020), lamented the fact that outside people and elites are getting rich from the Okavango Delta while the local people are kept in poverty. This is true across Africa. Recently, the governor of Kajiado County in Kenya, Joseph ole Lenku, threatened to order his people to start killing wildlife unless they are given much better benefits from wildlife conservation. As local people continue to be disenfranchised by conservation policies and practice, they are angry because they see others benefiting from their resources, while they receive very little or nothing therefrom; they only witness the damage caused by wildlife on their livelihoods.

As James Scott noted:

To do so affirms the fact that class conflict is, first and foremost, a struggle over the appropriation of work, property, production, and taxes. Consumption, from this perspective, is both the goal and the outcome of resistance and counter-resistance. Petty thefts of grain or pilfering on the threshing floor may seem like trivial ‘coping’ mechanisms from one vantage point; but from a broader view of class relations, how the harvest is actually divided belongs at the center. [Our emphasis.]

Scott also provided some insights into why poaching becomes so difficult to control when rural people are disenfranchised by an inequitable conservation harvest:

The problems of enforcement, however, are not entirely attributable to geography and demography; they are due at least as much to tacit complicity, and, occasionally active cooperation among the population from which the poachers come. Consider the difficulties that poachers would face if local residents were actively hostile to them and willing to give evidence in court. Poaching as a systematic pattern of reappropriation is simply unimaginable without a normative consensus that encourages it or, at a minimum, tolerates it. Otherwise it would be a simple matter to apprehend offenders. The forms such coordination and cooperation might take are extremely difficult to bring to light. [Our emphasis.]

Given that local people are probably poaching mainly for socioeconomic benefits (selling of bush meat, ivory, or rhino horn), such acts would be extremely difficult to sustain without cooperation and complicity among the population from which the poachers come. This demonstrates that resistance of authorities is a key element sustaining the viability of poaching. Poaching, as an act of resistance, is achieved through informal rural social networks; they hide and even encourage poachers and the middlemen to hunt game and buy meat, ivory, and rhino horn.

Herein lies the answer to the poaching problem: Local communities, who are born and bred in the area, know the landscapes intimately, have well-developed local social networks in these areas, and, as such, are ultimately able to outwit government conservation agencies who don’t know the area and don’t have the local social networks and sufficient funding or manpower to operate at every local situation. Thus, the level of legal authority is mismatched with the level of management requirements (a scale mismatch). Local communities, with their social networks and local support, hide the middlemen buying the meat, ivory, and rhino horn. They have information through their networks on where government patrols are, and by that means find it easy to avoid them. If caught, they have the local police on their side, who are their own people and who sympathize with them, hence poachers, in many cases, are let off the hook and their weapons returned to them. Consequently, government conservation agencies are rarely able to effectively control poaching, as witnessed in the incessant rhino, elephant, and bush meat poaching occurring across Africa.

These same factors that enable local communities to outwit government conservation agencies also make them much more effective conservators, because they are better matched to the local scale than centralized, state-led institutions. For instance, the greater knowledge of local communities about their local landscapes, combined with the practicalities of living on site, resulted in wildlife scouts from a community wildlife management area (WMA) in the Luangwa Valley of Zambia to clock more working hours and arrest more poachers than government scouts. These local communities were given ownership rights and decision-making power over wildlife in their area and derived benefits from wildlife conservation through tourism, trophy hunting, and meat from hunted animals. Soon the chief ordered his people to no longer poach and to report the presence of poachers. With their strong social networks, it became impossible for external poachers to remain undetected. This resulted in a tenfold reduction of rhino and elephant poaching. Similarly, Namibian conservancies, where local communities have been given ownership over wildlife, have seen a great reduction in poaching of rhino , with some having not lost a single rhino in the last two years .

The significance of the positive outcomes in these community conservation projects becomes clearly apparent when contrasted with the indelible flood of rhino poaching in Botswana and South Africa, where local communities neither have ownership and decision-making powers over wildlife nor derive any benefit from wildlife. Another example is the Rovuma elephant project, which is a community project in Tanzania. Here local communities are involved in decision-making and their village members engage in anti-poaching activities. While elephants are being devastated by poaching all around their area in the government-controlled PAs of the Selous Game Reserve, elephant poaching in their immediate local area has dropped dramatically .

These testaments are living proof. The reasons for conservation problems in Africa are not far-fetched. The problems are inextricably linked to government control of conservation and the associated moral and ethical problems of displacement and disenfranchisement of local communities by PAs while elites benefit from their resources — a colonial conservation mindset that is no longer acceptable. Thus, it is time to give local communities’ lands back to them and allow them to conserve and derive benefits from wildlife conservation in their local areas, where they have the decision-making rights over wildlife management. True and valid devolution of decision-making rights to local communities means that they, not governments, decide on who they will partner with in tourism and they, not consultants, decide on how they will manage their areas.

This also means that local communities must decide whether they want to have trophy hunting in their area. It is a direct violation of decision-making rights of local communities for governments to implement nation-wide hunting bans, as this greatly undermines the former’s ability to demonstrate ownership of and derive value from wildlife. The hunting ban in Botswana caused loss of access to game meat and collapsed income flows from wildlife to local communities, causing resentment of external control of conservation, implemented from the top down, against their wishes, which has resulted in increased poaching .

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) thrives when full decision-making rights and benefits from wildlife are devolved to local communities. Theory and factual evidence show that this is the only solution to ensuring that wildlife conservation is sustainable. Science-based frameworks, such as the social-ecological systems framework (SESF) , clearly articulate the governance principles for sustainable conservation, highlighting the importance of devolving autonomy of decision-making rights and benefits from wildlife to local communities. So successful has this framework been for community conservation worldwide that Elinor Ostrom, one of its key proponents, was awarded a Nobel Prize. Similarly, decades of research on CBNRM in Africa have confirmed the importance of local people’s decision-making rights and benefits from wildlife for promoting successful local community conservation projects. Ostrom and Nagendra reached similar conclusions in south Asia from studies of forest use by local communities under different governance regimes. They note:

If the formal rules limiting access and harvest levels are not known or considered legitimate by local resource users, substantial investment in fences and official guards to patrol boundaries are needed to prevent ‘illegal’ harvesting. Without these expensive inputs, government-owned, ‘protected’ forests may not be protected in practice… when the users themselves have a role in making local rules, or at least consider the rules to be legitimate, they are frequently willing to engage themselves in monitoring and sanctioning of uses considered illegal, even of public property.

By contrast, if these principles are overridden and centralized by government agencies, then local communities are likely to resist conservation objectives, even causing a collapse of conservation efforts .

Across Africa, national governments refuse to devolve decision-making power and benefits from wildlife to local communities. Thus, poaching is unsurprisingly out of control. African governments have, therefore, reaped, and are still reaping, the harvest of their bad policy decisions. So far, only the Namibian government has been brave enough to bring in proper science-based policies that devolve ownership, decision-making rights, and benefits from wildlife to local communities. The Namibian government now reaps the benefits as witnessed in very low poaching rates and growing rhino populations in their country. Wise and proper policies bring good results!

Indeed, it is now time to give local communities large concession areas in and around PAs, over which they have autonomy of decision-making rights, managed through their local institutions, and through which they could benefit from tourism, trophy hunting, fishing, collection of veldt products such as thatching grass, reeds, and wild food plants, and, importantly, access to key traditional grazing resources for their livestock ( planned in a manner that facilitates co-existence with wildlife ).

It must be emphasized that the role of national governments in conservation is not eclipsed by these community-centered approaches to conservation, but rather re-aligned from managing local scale problems, such as anti-poaching patrols, to playing overseeing, coordinating, and supporting roles at national scales. This could involve coordinating cross-scale conservation networks that include various government departments, parastatals, local and international NGOs, researchers, and private sector interests that support and promote the success of community conservation projects .

Tourist companies are not threatened by such an arrangement either. Instead of partnering with governments and paying government concession fees, they can now partner with local communities and pay them directly. This ensures that local communities get much better financial benefit from conservation — a critical ingredient for sustainability. The proof of concept for giving back lands to local communities within PAs can be seen in the Makuleke example , where the Makuleke community were given back the northern section of Kruger from which they had been displaced. They have successfully run this section of Kruger in partnership with South African National Parks, with support from conservation NGOs. Giving local communities land within PAs can also play a key role in negotiating for conserving important land for wildlife , such as migration corridors, in community areas outside PAs, which was observed when the Makuleke community added some of their land outside Kruger to their repatriated land within Kruger.

Ultimately, the solution to significantly reduce poaching across Africa is not going to be about increasing state-led anti-poaching forces and their automatic weapons. As witnessed in Kruger, the cost of relying on government-controlled anti-poaching forces is immense and ineffective. These unnecessary costs could have been avoided under community conservation and the money more effectively invested into developing community conservation programs.

• Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National academy of sciences, 104(39), 15188-15193.

• Chase, M. J., Schlossberg, S., Griffin, C. R., Bouché, P. J., Djene, S. W., Elkan, P. W., … & Omondi, P. (2016). Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants. PeerJ, 4, e2354.

• Chatty, D., & Colchester, M. (Eds.). (2002). Conservation and mobile indigenous peoples: Displacement, forced settlement, and sustainable development (Vol. 10). Berghahn Books.

• Ferreira, S. M., Bissett, C., Cowell, C. R., Gaylard, A., Greaver, C., Hayes, J., … & Zimmermann, D. (2017). The status of rhinoceroses in South African national parks. Koedoe, 59(1), 1-11.

• Fynn, R. W., Augustine, D. J., Peel, M. J., & de Garine‐Wichatitsky, M. (2016). Strategic management of livestock to improve biodiversity conservation in A frican savannahs: a conceptual basis for wildlife–livestock coexistence. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(2), 388-397.

• Gaodirelwe, I., Motsholapheko, M. R., & Masunga, G. S. (2020). Community perceptions of wildlife management strategies and subsistence poaching in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1-18.

• Lejano, R. P., Ingram, H. M., Whiteley, J. M., Torres, D., & Agduma, S. J. (2007). The importance of context: integrating resource conservation with local institutions. Society & Natural Resources, 20(2), 177-185.

• Lewis, D., Kaweche, G. B., & Mwenya, A. (1990). Wildlife conservation outside protected areas—lessons from an experiment in Zambia. Conservation biology, 4(2), 171-180.

• Lotter, W. and K. Clark. 2014. Community involvement and joint operations aid effective anti-poaching in Tanzania. Parks 20: 19-28.

• Maluleke, L. (2004, November). The Makuleke Story. In world conservation congress, Bangkok, Thailand (pp. 17-25).

• Mbaiwa, J. E. (2018). Effects of the safari hunting tourism ban on rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation in Northern Botswana. South African Geographical Journal, 100(1), 41-61.

• McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2).

• Muntifering, J. R., Linklater, W. L., Clark, S. G., Kasaona, J. K., Du Preez, P., Kasaona, K., … & Thouless, C. (2017). Harnessing values to save the rhinoceros: insights from Namibia. Oryx, 51(1), 98-105.

• Muntifering, J. 2019. Engaging and Empowering Local People in Saving Rhinos – a case from Kunene, Namibia. In: Etosha 112 Years and Counting Symposium. Organised by Etosha Ecological Institute, Mokuti Lodge, Etosha National Park: Namibia. 11 June 2019.

• Murphree, M. W. (2009). The strategic pillars of communal natural resource management: benefit, empowerment and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(10), 2551-2562.

• Noga, S. R., Kolawole, O. D., Thakadu, O. T., & Masunga, G. S. (2018). ‘Wildlife officials only care about animals’: Farmers’ perceptions of a Ministry-based extension delivery system in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of rural studies, 61, 216-226.

• Ostrom, E., & Nagendra, H. (2006). Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences, 103(51), 19224-19231.

• Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422.

• Rogan, M. S., Lindsey, P. A., Tambling, C. J., Golabek, K. A., Chase, M. J., Collins, K., & McNutt, J. W. (2017). Illegal bushmeat hunters compete with predators and threaten wild herbivore populations in a global tourism hotspot. Biological Conservation, 210, 233-242.

• Scott, J. C. (1989). Everyday forms of resistance. The Copenhagen journal of Asian studies, 4, 33-33.

Richard Fynn is an Associate Professor of Rangeland Ecology and Oluwatoyin Kolawole is a Professor of Rural Development, both at the Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Maun.

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Malaysian court shuts down hydroelectric dam project on Indigenous land

Why I quit the film industry to work on ecological restoration (commentary)

Report links killings to environmental crimes in Peru’s Amazon

Marine ecosystems still overlooked in Indonesia’s new conservation law, critics say

To save endangered trees, researchers in South America recruit an army of fungi

Clearest picture yet of Amazon carbon density could help guide conservation

Sri Lanka completes first elephant census since 2011 amid uncertainty

Extreme drought pushes Amazon’s main rivers to lowest-ever levels

you're currently offline

Band 7+: Poaching is a persistent problem in many countries. What are the causes of the rise in poaching? What are the effects of this practice?

Animals play an integral role in the ecosystem of our planet. However, in a number of nations, there is a proliferation of poaching, which is an alarming problem. This essay will investigate into the reason for this practice before showing its impacts.

Poaching can be attributed to several factors. What is most pronounced is that this practice provides people with a wide range of products from food to fashion items as well as decorations. For example, people living in mountainous regions might find hunting as a daily routine to serve their living, by eating the wild animals or selling them to manufacturers to produce high-end fashion clothes without acknowledging whether this action is illegal or not. In addition, hunting wild animals, which are on the verge of extinction is a hobby of some people. It can be explained by the fact that it is the scarcity of animals that satisfies and fulfills the desires of some cruel individuals.

As a consequence, this practice has a number of prominent drawbacks. First and foremost, illegal hunting or poaching without the control of the municipal authorities can take a toll on the natural habitat. Indeed, if people are poaching in an uncontrollable way, many vulnerable species might go into extinction. What is more, not only leads to the disappearance of one particular species, but the ecosystem might also become imbalanced. In fact, the loss of one species in the food chain will lead to the increase of some predators, damaging other inhabitants. Therefore, poaching is undeniably detrimental to the planet.

In conclusion, poaching stems from a combination of factors namely consumerism and hobby. This practice is disadvantageous when it comes to natural habitat, threatening the balance of the ecosystem. Therefore, drastic actions need to be taken to eliminate its demerits or it will soon be too late.

Check Your Own Essay On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample with your idea, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, essays on the same topic:, poaching is a persistent problem in many countries. what are the causes of the rise in poaching what are the effects of this practice.

Animals play an integral role in the ecosystems of our planet. However, many nations have to face the alarming poaching issues. From my perspective, I believe that the economic demands and country’s identity are the primary factors leading to this rise while the disruption of ecological balance is the negative impact. To begin with, wildlife […]

Many nations face a pressing issue regarding wild animals being illegally hunted. This trend results from the market demand for wildlife products and the cultural values of animal body parts, which consequently lead to biodiversity and economic loss. There are two reasons for this problem. One of the main causes of poaching is the need […]

In many nations, there is a proliferation of illegal taking of animals, which is an alarming problem as animals play a pivotal environmental role. This essay will discuss the rationale behind this development, and then examine some adverse effects associated with it. It is understandable why many poachers try their best to capture animals illegally. […]

Other Topics:

It is better to learn the way people lived in the past through films and video records than written documents. to what extent do you agree or disagree give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. you should write at least 250 words..

People cannot do something to improve the environment; only authority and big companies can make a difference. I disagree this statement and this essay write reason why. One of the reason is that if we do to improve the enviroment, we should to work together. I think most famouse doing to improve the environment is […]

The bar chart below shows estimated world illiteracy rates by region and by gender for the last year. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant

The bar chart gives demographic information for employment sectors and gender in Australia last year. There were much more men than women in management, production and tradesperson roles. For example, management roles are three times more likely to be occupied by men at 600,000 employed. Although the gap was largest in the trades jobs with […]

Some people believe that money is the most important factor for achieving happiness. However, others believe that happiness has nothing to do with money. Agree or disagree?

Happiness is an essential feeling for human in daily life. Some think that money plays a crucial role to keep people happy, while others think money is not required. In this essay, I will advocate the latter view and explain it with two reasons. First, Happiness is mainly established from interest and hobby. People love […]

The restoration of old buildings in major cities throughout the world involves enormous expenditure. This money would bring more benefits if it was used to provide new housing and road development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is often argued that government should invest money in building new infrastructure and residential communities rather than fixing old premises. I totally agree that the government must allot the budget strictly to construct modern infrastructure as it will benefit both the country and the people in the long run. Many countries are facing housing […]

In numerous nations, there is a growing trend for individuals to frequently discuss financial matters, such as their earnings or expenditures, in everyday conversation. What are the reasons behind this phenomenon? Is it advantageous or detrimental?

There is a burgeoning trend for citizens of several nations to daily engage in frequent discussions regarding their finances, such as their income and expenses. The driving force behind this observed trend can be attributed to the inclement economic state of such nations. From my viewpoint, it is of great benefit as it serves as […]

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Some people believe that young people should choose the jobs that they want, but other people think they should be more realistic and think more about their future. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Write at least 250 words.

Selection of occupation is an all-embracing term which as a conspicuous topic has grabbed the headings, recently. A handful of individuals are of opinion that youngsters must occupy a favoured-based position, while opponents deem that these selectors need to be more logistic and take the living condition into account in later in the life which […]

Plans & Pricing

• Get involved

Combating Poaching and Wildlife Trafficking

March 2, 2015.

Wildlife trafficking is among the five most lucrative illegal trades globally, worth an estimated 23 billion USD annually. It is a multifaceted global threat that erodes biodiversity, ecosystems and creates insecurity that fuels conflict and corruption.  Poaching and wildlife trafficking strip countries of their national assets, disrupt social cohesion, and undermine the rule of law. 

UNDP supports efforts to combat the illegal trade in wildlife, both fauna and flora, drawing on an integrated approach. We leverage our expertise, partnerships, and global networks to support countries eradicate poverty, protect the environment, empower women, and build strong institutions, all of which support the rule of law. UNDP work focuses on diversifying rural livelihoods, managing human-wildlife conflict, and sharing the benefits from sustainable wildlife management.

The UNDP-GEF biodiversity and ecosystems portfolio is the largest in the UN system, covering over 130 countries and 500 projects with USD 1.5 billion in funding and USD 3.5 billion of co-financing. We have helped establish over 2,000 protected areas in 85 countries around the world, covering 272 million hectares of land. Building on this portfolio of work, we are exploring new and innovative partnerships with governments, UN agencies, the World Bank, wildlife conservation organisations and civil society groups.

Document Type

Related publications.

Publications

Señales de cambio 2024.

De cara a la Cumbre del Futuro de septiembre de 2024, la cuestión sobre qué tipo de mundo dejamos a nuestros descendientes nos concierne a todos. El documento “...

Multi-speed growth is back, with a fiscal blind spot

While 68 developing economies are currently growing at more than 4%, the projected effects on poverty are uneven. Looking forward, high levels of debt and weak ...

Making Progress on SDG 16: Unlocking the Power of Example

This publication is about the power of example. It is about how governments, people and institutions are putting peace, justice and inclusion at the center of t...

UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2022-2025 | 2023 Annual Rep...

This report highlights the midterm review and second year of implementation of the UNDP 2022-2025 Gender Equality Strategy.

Putting a Stop to Gender Violence through Community Actio...

This brief shares the successes and lessons learned of the methodology used to inform and encourage the creation of women leaders networks in other contexts and...

1st UNDP Global Dialogue on Public Finance and Tax for Ge...

This document presents the summary conclusions of the event, as well as the way forward for public finance and tax practitioner to facilitate gender equality.

Poaching animals, explained

Illegally taking animals from the wild threatens many species with extinction.

Wild animals are being poached on a massive scale, with millions of individual animals of thousands of species worldwide killed or captured from their native habitats.

  Poaching poses a threat to elephants, rhinos, and other animals, as well as to smaller and more obscure creatures, such as lizards and monkeys.

Why animals are poached

Poachers sometimes kill or capture animals to sell them locally or for the global trade in wildlife . Wildlife trading is a major black market that has increased alongside rising wealth in Asia—a major consumer of wildlife—and the advent of e-commerce and social media websites .

Some animals, such as birds, reptiles, and primates, are captured live so that they can be kept or sold as exotic pets. Slaughtered animals, on the other hand, have commercial value as food, jewelry, decor, or traditional medicine. The ivory tusks of African elephants , for example, are carved into trinkets or display pieces. The scales of pangolins , small animals that eat ants, are ground into powder and consumed for their purported healing powers. The meat of apes, snakes, and other animals is considered a delicacy in parts of Africa.

In addition to killing for direct profit, poachers target animals to prevent them from destroying crops or attacking livestock. This happens to lions and elephants in Africa , as well as to wolves, coyotes, and other predators in North America and beyond.

The effects of poaching

Poaching has devastating consequences for wildlife . In some instances, it’s the primary reason why an animal faces a risk of extinction. This is the case with the African elephant, more than 100,000 of which were killed between 2014 and 2017 for ivory. Poaching has also had a catastrophic impact on rhinos, with more than a thousand slaughtered a year for their horns.

Poaching for the exotic pet trade affects an animal’s welfare in addition to its numbers in the wild. Most wild animals eat specialized diets found in nature, and they need space to fly, roam, and swing from branches. Captured animals are stuffed into boxes, suitcases, or sacks, and even if they survive transport, they often suffer in their new, unnatural situations .

Then there’s the tragic ways poaching affects people. In Africa, nearly 600 rangers charged with protecting wildlife were gunned down by poachers between 2009 and 2016 while in the line of duty. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Virunga National Park, one of the continent’s most dangerous , at least 170 rangers have been killed during the past two decades.

What’s more, poaching has been linked to armed militia groups in Africa suspected of trafficking ivory to fund their operations, and it often occurs alongside other crimes including corruption and money laundering. And poached animals can spread disease, such as Ebola and SARS.

Efforts to stop poaching

In addition to providing on-the-ground protection for animals, many countries make poaching an offense punishable by prison or monetary fees. Because poachers in Africa and Asia are often impoverished local people who make small profits in comparison to traders and kingpins, penalties for poaching wildlife are generally less severe than those for trafficking wildlife.

There are also numerous nonprofits around the world working to end wildlife poaching. Some of these groups have helped to promote alternative, more sustainable ways for poachers to earn a living. Another way people are working to end poaching is by trying to decrease demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife parts. If no one's buying the products, there will be no need to kill the animals.

Related Topics

• INDIAN ELEPHANT
• ASIAN ELEPHANTS
• AFRICAN ELEPHANTS
• WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
• ANIMAL DISEASES
• EXOTIC PETS

You May Also Like

100 years of elephants: See how Nat Geo has photographed these iconic creatures

Discover the secret superpowers of elephants in this stop-motion animation

Wildlife crime is a national security issue—and Homeland Security is on the case

Elephants are in trouble—and we’re to blame

Do elephants bury their dead calves?

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Adventures Everywhere
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved