Selection of sources of evidence
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/Wildlife-crime-Figure-1.png.webp)
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 literature search flow diagram for new scoping reviews. Adapted from Page et al. (2020).
The systematic literature search conducted across the selected databases yielded a total of 1995 search results (Fig. 1). Following the initial screening, 1126 duplicates were removed, leaving 869 articles for title screening. From these, 653 articles were excluded based on their titles not aligning with the research question’s scope. Subsequently, 216 articles were retained for abstract screening, leading to the removal of seven more articles. The remaining 199 articles underwent a comprehensive review at the full-text level and were evaluated against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among these, 125 articles were excluded, while an additional 12 articles were identified through the snowball sampling approach. This resulted in a final selection of 86 literature items for inclusion in the review.
Characteristics of the literature
Publication status
The majority of the selected literature (n = 54) had undergone a formal peer-review process and had been published in academic journals (Fig. 2). The remaining literature (n = 32) encompassed a range of quality assurance processes, spanning from government reports to publications from advocacy groups.
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/Picture2-300x192.png.webp)
Figure 2. Breakdown of the literature by publication type
Geography of the literature
Among the selected literature, the focus was primarily on Scotland alone for 50 items (Fig. 3). A smaller subset addressed wildlife crime within the context of the entire United Kingdom (n = 30) or had a global perspective with specific mention of the UK (n = 6).
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/sgwegw4-300x192.png.webp)
Figure 3. Breakdown of the geography of the literature identified by the scoping review.
Wildlife crime frequency
In terms of wildlife crime categories, raptor crime emerged as the most frequently mentioned type across all literature types and geographies (n = 37), followed by plant crime (n = 16) and deer crime (n = 16) (Fig. 4). In contrast, crimes related to eels were discussed the least (n = 2).
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/sgderr-1024x525.png.webp)
Figure 4. Frequency of wildlife groups discussed by the literature identified in the scoping review. Literature that discussed wildlife crime in Scotland or the UK specifically, but did not mention particular wildlife is classed as general.
Wildlife crime frequency by geography
Further examination of the literature revealed variations in attention paid to specific wildlife crimes within Scotland. Raptor crime dominates and is covered in detail by the Scottish (n = 22) and UK literature (n = 16) (Fig. 5). Bats, mussels, hare, CITES and salmon are covered by the Scottish and UK literatures but at lower frequencies and often in generalised terms. Plant crime is not covered well by Scottish (n = 3), nor UK literature (n = 4), and is only discussed in detail at a global scale (n = 7).
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/hererhe-1024x629.png.webp)
Figure 5. Breakdown of the coverage of wildlife groups by literature geography
Literature coverage through time
A notable trend was the concentration of literature published since 2018 (n = 57), demonstrating a consistent timeline across various wildlife groups. Except for freshwater pearl mussels, with limited publications since 2016. This temporal distribution of literature reflects the recent attention and growing interest in the issue of wildlife crime across different wildlife categories.
Synthesis of results
This section synthesises evidence on the critical drivers of wildlife crime in Scotland from the evidence base. Direct motivations of perpetrators are covered first, based on frequency across taxa. Indirect systemic factors enabling offences are then detailed.
Direct drivers
Profit motives
The evidence base identifies profit and commercial gain as the most frequently cited direct drivers of wildlife crime in Scotland (n = 36 sources, Fig. 6). Economic motivations emerge across 57% of the 14 analysed wildlife groups (Fig. 7). These crimes involve situations where perpetrators directly benefit financially, view wildlife as economic competition, or anticipate financial gains from wildlife crime.
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/Picture6.png.webp)
Figure 6. Frequency of the direct drivers of wildlife crime mentioned by the literature identified in the scoping review. Profit motives or commercial reasons (N=35) are the most frequently mentioned driver of wildlife crime. Food movies (N=1) are the least frequently mentioned by the literature.
Economic competition and financial gains
Specifically, bats, badgers and raptors face persecution linked to perceived interference with human activities and associated economic impacts. 73% of sources emphasise profit motives in crimes against these species (Fig. 7.). The intentional targeting of raptors aims to protect hunting revenues [highest confidence] (Amar, 2012; Hodgson et al., 2018; Newton, 2021; RSPB, 2021). For example, hen harriers and peregrine falcons can reduce red grouse populations, directly affecting hunting income through reduced grouse bags [high confidence] (Hanley et al., 2010; Sotherton, Baines and Aebischer, 2017; Francksen et al., 2019). Stakeholders in grouse management express concerns about the viability of shooting estates if raptor populations were uncontrolled [highest confidence] (MacMillan et al., 2010; Sotherton, Baines and Aebischer, 2017; Hodgson et al., 2018). Demonstration estates aiming to conserve raptor populations and maintain shooting culture have thus far failed to restart the most intensive form of shooting management [medium confidence] (Sotherton, Baines and Aebischer, 2017).
Similarly, bat and badger crimes are motivated by cost saving measures [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Bat Conservation Trust, 2017; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Disturbing roosts and setts avoid survey and mitigation expenses, primarily regarding land/property development [low confidence] (Tingay, 2015; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a).
![](https://environmentalstandards.scot/wp-content/smush-webp/2024/02/Picture8.png.webp)
Figure 7. Frequency of the direct drivers of wildlife crime by wildlife group as mentioned by the literature identified in the scoping review. Profit motives or commercial reasons (N=35) are the most frequently mentioned driver of wildlife crime. Food motives (N=1) are the least frequently mentioned by the literature.
Lucrative wildlife trade
Illicit trade in CITES-listed and non-CITES-listed plants and animals presents major financial incentives, enabling significant illegal transactions. The literature highlights profit motives in 56% of plant crime sources. The desire to sell rare specimens at premium prices, driven by potential lucrative gains, emerges as a critical factor [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; Lavorgna and Sajeva, 2021; Whitehead et al., 2021). The allure of authenticity propels this trade, potentially spurring unauthorised collection beyond CITES regulations [medium confidence] (Lavorgna and Sajeva, 2021). Similarly, a market for young Scottish birds of prey exists in parts of Europe and the Middle East, with species like peregrine falcons commanding high prices [low confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015). Pearl mussels are illegally killed in large numbers every year, driven by pearl fishing, with the high price of pearls a key driver [medium confidence] (Cosgrove, Hastie and Sime, 2012; Cosgrove et al., 2016).
Secondary financial motivations
Secondary financial motivations include gambling on wildlife crimes like deer and hare coursing. While entertainment primarily drives coursing, betting remains significant [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011, 2012; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Similarly, badger baiting with dogs often involves betting [low confidence] (Wildlife and Countryside and Link, 2021).
Summary
In summary, the literature identifies economic and financial motivations as the predominant drivers of wildlife crimes in Scotland. These economic drivers range from direct profit incentives [high confidence] to cost-saving measures [high confidence]. Perpetrators directly benefit from, or anticipate financial gains through, activities like persecuting species interfering with revenues [high confidence], avoiding mitigation expenses [medium confidence], trafficking rare specimens [medium confidence] and gambling on blood sports [medium confidence].
Entertainment motives
Entertainment emerges as Scotland’s second most frequently identified direct driver of wildlife crime (n = 16 sources, Fig. 6). Like profit motivations, entertainment features consistently across 50% of the 14 wildlife groups analysed (Fig. 7). These crimes include illegal activities undertaken as hobbies, and more sinister offences involving animal harm that allow socialising among like-minded individuals and demonstrations of masculinity.
Hobbyist crimes
‘Hobbyist’ criminals commit high status, low-level offences without underlying criminal needs (Nurse, 2011). This includes mature egg collectors who view the activity as a lifestyle choice and desire to own eggs and trade collections, having started the practice legitimately as schoolboys [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2011). These individuals delight in the activity, excited for the upcoming season, sometimes in an obsessional manner [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2011). Similarly, illegal plant collectors can be motivated by owning rare specimens for their novelty and authenticity and wanting to be the ‘first’ owner of new varieties [medium confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; Wildlife and Countryside and Link, 2021). These motivations link to gaining status among similar communities through crimes [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a).
Thrill-Seeking and masculinity
More concerning are criminals harming animals for the thrill. Increasingly there are reports of young men illegally hunting wildlife in small packs, coursing and killing badgers, hares and deer [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011; Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). These wildlife offenders are predominately male and their crimes are an outlet for aggression [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011, 2012). These criminals may derive some financial gain from gambling around the action, but it is not the primary motivator [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). The activities help confer status to young men, allowing them to exercise masculine stereotypes based upon perceived cultural acceptance of toughness, aggressiveness, cleverness and a love of excitement [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011; Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Offenders often record and post incidents online to demonstrate their prowess [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a).
Summary
In summary, entertainment motivations like hobby collecting [medium confidence], thrill-seeking [high confidence] and demonstrations of masculinity [medium confidence] feature prominently as wildlife crime drivers in Scotland.
Antipathy
Antipathy towards government and law enforcement emerges as the third most cited driver, featuring in 50% of sources reviewing wildlife crime drivers generally rather than for specific taxa (Fig. 7). These ‘protest crimes’ stem from a sense that activities are not severe or criminal offences (Nurse, 2011).
Protesting outside interference
Some perpetrators protest perceived external interference in rural communities, questioning the legitimacy of outside management. For instance, reintroducing raptors without perceived due consideration of affected groups can spur conflicts [highest confidence] (Redpath et al., 2013; Molenaar et al., 2017; Bavin et al., 2023), especially if agencies are perceived to lack practical land management experience and impose impractical regulations [highest confidence] (Hodgson et al., 2018; Bavin et al., 2023). Rural residents and land managers may view policymakers as misinformed and disconnected from the countryside [highest confidence] (Dinnie, Fischer and Huband, 2015; Hodgson et al., 2018), reinforcing their claims as true countryside knowledge holders. This may limit the government’s ability to shape outcomes when land managers resist adopted policies [medium confidence] (Redpath et al., 2013). This outlook helps offenders to dismiss wildlife crimes as merely ‘illegal’ per outsider rules, rather than intrinsically criminal.
Offenders dispute criminality
Offenders often argue that their actions are not crimes. For instance, mature egg collectors insist they are not criminals since collecting was once legal [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Pearl fishers brazenly leave shells at crime scenes, believing their activities are not severe offences [medium confidence] (Cosgrove, Hastie and Sime, 2012; Cosgrove et al., 2016). In some communities, badger baiting is described as “what always been done”, performed for the good of the community [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2012: 11). The same source, when informed these actions were illegal badger persecution, insisted their family’s actions were legal: “my dad says it is okay to do that” [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2012: 11). Offenders justify actions by framing activities as legal practices rather than crimes, admitting criminality by others, like poachers, but denying their own, or dismissing it as an error of judgment [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011, 2012).
Summary
In summary, sentiments of protesting perceived outside interference [highest confidence] and believing activities do not constitute real crimes [medium confidence] enable some wildlife offences in Scotland.
Traditions and cultural beliefs
Traditions and cultural beliefs emerge as the fourth most commonly cited driver across the evidence base, though mainly in cases of raptor crime and general wildlife crime. These crimes stem from traditional wildlife uses, cultural lifestyles and fears of changing livelihoods.
Specific cultural beliefs around wildlife uses
Certain wildlife crimes in Scotland are linked to cultural beliefs about using certain wildlife products. For instance, pearling techniques are handed down in families, with pearls kept for collection [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Wild-sourced plants are also preferred for perceived quality benefits [medium confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020).
Shooting culture and tradition
Shooting culture is seen as a traditional countryside activity with social importance. Grouse shooting provides non-financial benefits for owners, as grouse shooting enterprises are rarely profitable as stand-alone activities [high confidence] (MacMillan et al., 2010; BiGGAR Economics, 2023; Scottish Government, 2023). Instead, owning a sporting estate is a lifestyle choice, where management practices remain highly traditional, with innovations frowned upon [high confidence] (MacMillan et al., 2010). Despite varied backgrounds, landowners uniformly value maintaining rituals like hunting and shooting because of their social significance [high confidence] (MacMillan et al., 2010; Thompson et al., 2020).
Rural community impacts
While shooting generates limited estate profits, it provides rural community livelihoods and cultural identity [highest confidence] (Thompson, McMorran and Glass, 2018; Thompson et al., 2020). Jobs are often vocational and span generations, with housing tied to employment [high confidence] (Thompson et al., 2020). Gamekeepers play vital community roles [high confidence] (Thompson et al., 2020). Junior gamekeepers on shooting estates learn techniques of poisoning and trapping through interactions with established staff [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2011). Losing shooting could mean job and housing losses, along with cultural changes.
Livelihood change fears
A lack of predator control success for gamekeepers can imply job failure and losing family housing [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2011). There are fears that under alternative land uses, job and housing losses could rupture cultural lifestyles, because shooting estates provide higher per-hectare employment than other moorland land uses like forestry [high confidence] (Sotherton, Baines and Aebischer, 2017; Thompson, McMorran and Glass, 2018; Thompson et al., 2020). Transitioning from grouse shooting will impact rural economies and communities.
Summary
In summary, cultural motivations like traditional practices [high confidence], beliefs around wildlife use [high confidence] and fears of rupturing rural lifestyles [medium confidence] enable some wildlife crimes in Scotland.
Attitudes towards animals
Individual attitudes towards animals are an infrequently cited driver of wildlife crime in Scotland (n = 5 sources, Fig. 6), found across 29% of wildlife groups (Fig. 7). Crimes of attitude relate to social perceptions of animals, ranging from vermin control to hobby pursuits.
Vermin control
Certain animals may be deemed vermin and persecuted through poisoning, gassing or trapping to remove them from a location [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Adders are killed over bite risks to people and livestock [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a), while bats experience persecution out of fear or dislike [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Bat Conservation Trust, 2017). The use of terms like “pests” and “predators” reinforces these attitudes and justifies lethal control [low confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015).
Denial of suffering
Wildlife is often valued solely in economic terms, with legal protections limited to aligning with the utility of the animal [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020). Some crimes stem from treating animals as commodities for hobby collection or sport [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2020). For instance, coursing enthusiasts argue that prey enjoy the chase and cannot feel harm [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2020). Such rationalisation reinforces views of animals as commodities, rather than sentient beings, which may suffer due to an individual’s actions [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2011). This reveals that complex views persist around animals as protected yet exploited for shooting sports [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2012).
Summary
In summary, varied individual attitudes towards animals, ranging from commodities [medium confidence] to vermin [medium confidence], enable rationalisations of certain wildlife crimes.
Accidental
Accidents emerge as cited drivers in the literature across several taxa, particularly herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians). These crimes stem from simple mistakes and a lack of awareness.
Accidents and lack of awareness
Some wildlife crimes occur accidentally rather than with criminal intent. Amphibians and reptiles are sometimes inadvertently killed during land management activities like road verge mowing or conservation work on nature reserves [low confidence] (Wildlife and Countryside and Link, 2021). Grass snakes and slow worms can be killed because they are confused with adders [low confidence] (Wildlife and Countryside and Link, 2021). While unfortunate, these accidental deaths during legal practices would not typically constitute offences.
Lack of awareness around laws like CITES also leads to unintentional illegality. For instance, tourists may unknowingly bring back illegal wildlife products like coral or rosewood from holidays without proper permits [medium confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; Wildlife and Countryside and Link, 2021). Advertisements for illegal plants on mainstream online platforms can reinforce assumptions that the products are legal, misleading naïve buyers [medium confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020).
Summary
Factors like ignorance of wildlife legislation [medium confidence], confusion around complex rules [medium confidence], lack of public awareness and unintended collateral damage during legal land use practices [low confidence] can all contribute to some accidental wildlife crimes.
Food motivations
Food motivation is the least frequently cited driver of wildlife crime. Some wildlife crimes are driven by the goal of obtaining food or ingredients. Salmon, sea trout, brown trout and rainbow trout are highly prized for their meat [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). European eels have been caught as food sources for centuries [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022b). These appetites for specific species as food or ingredients incentivise some offenders to acquire wildlife illegally [medium confidence].
Direct drivers conclusion
In conclusion, varied individual-level drivers in order of importance include economic incentives, entertainment, protest sentiments, cultural factors, attitudes towards animals and motivations like food. Financial motivations and profit protection lead to the persecution of economically threatening species [highest confidence]. Entertainment drivers involve thrill-seeking, masculinity and hobbies like egg collecting [medium confidence]. Dismissing the legitimacy of laws enables some protest crimes [high confidence]. Cultural traditions and rural livelihoods factor into certain offences [high confidence]. Varied attitudes shape perceptions of animals as commodities or pests [medium confidence]. These direct reasons illustrate why perpetrators commit wildlife crimes, but systemic factors enable wildlife crime by shaping its risks versus rewards.
Indirect drivers of crime
Introduction
This section synthesises evidence on the indirect factors enabling wildlife crime in Scotland. Indirect drivers refer to systemic and contextual conditions that facilitate offences in contrast to the direct motivations of perpetrators.
Low risk and high reward dynamics enable wildlife crime
Many potential wildlife criminals view offences as low-risk activities with high reward potential. This manifests in brazen attitudes like posting crimes online and openly admitting to illegal acts [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; Lavorgna and Sajeva, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022b) and similarly when developers are willing to risk criminal activity as enforcement is unlikely [medium confidence] (Bat Conservation Trust, 2017; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a).
Low-risk perception
These attitudes stem from crimes being easy to hide and hard to detect. Illicit wildlife trade frequently occurs anonymously online in largely unpoliced spaces [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; Lavorgna and Sajeva, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022b). Other offences like illegal fishing happen in remote areas where detection and witnesses are unlikely [high confidence] (Cosgrove, Hastie and Sime, 2012; Cosgrove et al., 2016). For example, there have been no successful prosecutions of pearl fishers [low confidence] (Cosgrove et al., 2016). Evidence like raptor corpses can also be readily relocated or discarded [high confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Tingay, 2015; RSPB, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). As a result, the chances of crimes being discovered, reported and prosecuted are slim, reducing deterrence [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020).
Punishments also fail to act as deterrents. Conservation stakeholders express frustration with the criminal justice system where crimes have been inadequately investigated with low prosecution rates, and even when convicted, low fines and short sentences are given to offenders [high confidence] (St John, Edwards-Jones and Jones, 2012; Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Bat Conservation Trust, 2017; Nurse, 2020; UNODC, 2021). Sentences rarely contain rehabilitative elements to prevent reoffending [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2012). The combined low risks of discovery and punitive sentencing can facilitate criminal activity.
High reward potential
Wildlife crimes can be highly profitable. The global illegal wildlife trade is worth up to £17 billion annually [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022b). Plant smuggling is described as “lucrative” with “low sentences and high profits” [medium confidence] (Lavorgna and Sajeva, 2021). While the legal grouse shooting industry in Scotland provides thousands of jobs and millions in economic impacts and wages [high confidence] (Thompson, McMorran and Glass, 2018), with intensive operations yielding up to £5,000 per grouse brace [high confidence] (Thompson, McMorran and Glass, 2018).
Summary
In summary, perceptions of low enforcement risks [high confidence] combine with potentially large illicit profits or cost-savings [medium confidence] to position wildlife crime as high reward, low risk.
Systemic law enforcement challenges
Wildlife crime is seen as a low-risk activity for potential criminals, partly because of problems in law enforcement. Conservation stakeholders repeatedly express their frustration over delayed response times, lost evidence and poor use of resources to investigate wildlife crime. As a result, some non-governmental organisation (NGO) stakeholders lack confidence in the ability of statutory agencies to investigate wildlife crime adequately. Calls for stricter laws and sentencing might only be effective with corresponding improvements in the enforcement regime [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011, 2012, 2020; Wellsmith, 2011).
Funding
Limited funding severely constrains effective policing of wildlife crime. The National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), a critical central resource for intelligence and investigative support, constantly battles for its existence despite tremendous value [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; UNODC, 2021). Its approximately £580,000 annual budget may not be able to support strategic planning, training, equipment, or experienced staff recruitment [medium confidence] (UNODC, 2021). The UK Government has opted for single-year rather than multi-year spending reviews in recent years, so the NWCU must request funds annually [medium confidence] (UNODC, 2021). In 2021, this process took three months before approval was granted [medium confidence] (UNODC, 2021). Wildlife crime requires proactive, expert investigation, but this uncertain funding horizon deters experienced investigators [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2012; UNODC, 2021). Underinvestment in dedicated policing units can encourage a reactive approach relying on overstretched officers lacking specialised skills [medium confidence].
Training and expertise
Inadequate and inconsistent training on investigating wildlife crimes constrains enforcement capabilities. Most officers are uniformed police rather than specially trained detectives [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; UNODC, 2021). No unified training approach exists, relying on ad hoc courses or retired professionals [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020; UNODC, 2021). Recruit training excludes wildlife crimes altogether [medium confidence] (UNODC, 2021), while trained wildlife officers get minimal hands-on investigative experience before being reassigned [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; UNODC, 2021). Though dedicated, uniformed officers often need more opportunities to develop advanced detective techniques, hone skills through varied investigations and develop their expertise in policing wildlife crime that serious wildlife crimes require [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020; Tingay, 2015).
Not a serious crime
Wildlife crimes are frequently not regarded as severe offences warranting priority, hindering enforcement. Senior officers downplay these cases, with part-time or reactive policing dependent on NGOs rather than proactive investigations by skilled detectives [high confidence] (Wellsmith, 2011; Nurse, 2012, 2020; Tingay, 2015; UNODC, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Despite the publicity, wildlife crimes are marginalised as priorities in mainstream justice systems [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020; UNODC, 2021). Exceptions like Operation Easter[7] show focused intelligence efforts can deliver results, yet are not the norm [low confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015). Wildlife crime lacks definition as ‘serious’ or ‘organised’ crime, preventing the use of advanced investigative techniques [medium confidence] (UNODC, 2021). Wildlife crimes rank below other violent crimes, which demand more immediate attention [medium confidence] (Nurse, 2012). Treating wildlife offences as unimportant can undermine effective enforcement.
Summary
Limited funding, training deficiencies and low prioritisation hinder the effective policing of wildlife crime in Scotland by creating a low-risk environment for wildlife crime. Chronic under-resourcing forces a reactive approach when proactive expert investigation is needed [medium confidence]. Inconsistent training fails to develop enduring enforcement expertise [high confidence] and a culture that acknowledges the seriousness of wildlife offences [high confidence]. While violent crimes understandably require urgent attention, disregarding wildlife crimes as unworthy of skilled policing enables persistence [high confidence]. Each challenge builds on the others in a reinforcing cycle – lack of funding prevents training and proactive units, undermining severe treatment and encouraging potential offenders [medium confidence].
Court-related challenges undermine wildlife crime justice
Inconsistent and lenient sentencing
Inconsistent sentencing undermines deterrence. With no sentencing guidelines yet for wildlife crime across the UK, sentencing often does not adequately reflect the nature and impact of the crime and is erratic. Wildlife crime is a low priority and magistrates place more importance on the illegal economic gain than on the conservation impact of the crime [medium confidence] (St John, Edwards-Jones and Jones, 2012). They must also judge a criminal’s ability to pay a fine and consider reducing sanctions in response to offender mitigation (such as a timely guilty plea) [high confidence] (St John, Edwards-Jones and Jones, 2012; UNODC, 2021). As a result, sentences frequently fall at the lower end of available ranges [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011, 2012; Tingay, 2015; Lavorgna et al., 2020; UNODC, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Inconsistency and leniency can enable persistence.
Prosecutorial constraints
Prosecutors face resourcing and training deficits [medium confidence] (Tingay, 2015; UNODC, 2021). Securing convictions requires substantial effort and expert testimony, but sentences often do not justify costs [high confidence] (St John, Edwards-Jones and Jones, 2012; UNODC, 2021). Frustration emerges when cases get discarded as not in the public interest over factors like first offences, despite significant investigative investments [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; UNODC, 2021).
Lack of transparency and oversight
Poor transparency around prosecutorial decision-making and case outcomes breeds stakeholder mistrust [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Bat Conservation Trust, 2017). Forensic labs are often uninformed of prosecution results [medium confidence] (Millins et al., 2014). Inadequate communication between authorities and partners during investigations is another issue [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Tingay, 2015; RSPB, 2021). Unclear reasoning around declined prosecutions diminishes confidence in the process [medium confidence] (Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Tingay, 2015; RSPB, 2021).
Summary
Overall, inconsistent sentencing [high confidence], constraints around prosecution [high confidence] and a lack of transparency [medium confidence] impede justice and reinforce perceptions of wildlife crime as low risk.
Issues in the legislature
Legislative gaps and complexities may enable wildlife crimes in Scotland. Wildlife protection laws are fragmented across multiple statutes intended for conservation management rather than criminal justice [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; Scottish Environment LINK, 2021; UNODC, 2021). There are disparities between Scotland’s approach and England, Wales and Northern Ireland [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; UNODC, 2021). Deficiencies exist around penalties, species coverage, rest sites and landowner liability [high confidence] (Tingay, 2015; Scottish Environment LINK, 2021; UNODC, 2021). Complex regulations like CITES permits need better public compliance [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; UNODC, 2021). In practice, legislative complexity and varied standards across the UK reinforce notions of wildlife crime as an issue of low priority. However, analysis suggests that enforcement limitations outweigh legislative ones as the primary obstacle [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020).
Lack of data constrains understanding and responses
The true scale is unknown
Significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the accurate scale and nature of wildlife crimes due to inconsistent data, under-reporting of crimes, and a lack of research. Some wildlife groups, such as herpetofauna or pearl mussels, receive scant attention in the literature where intentions to analyse crime drivers in these groups are stated, but not delivered [highest confidence] (Cosgrove et al., 2016; Raynor, 2018). Meanwhile, the evidence base should include the socio-economic effects of grouse moor management [highest confidence] (Thompson, McMorran and Glass, 2018; Thompson et al., 2020). Detected incidents of crime likely represent a fraction of actual offences, but the extent of this ‘dark figure’ is uncertain [highest confidence] (Cosgrove, Hastie and Sime, 2012; Scottish Environment LINK, 2015; Tingay, 2015; Murgatroyd et al., 2019; Lavorgna et al., 2020; RSPB, 2021; UNODC, 2021; Wildlife and Countryside and Link, 2021). For example, there are significant discrepancies in the number of recorded incidents by NGOs compared with the Scottish Government’s wildlife crime reports [high confidence] (Bat Conservation Trust, 2017; RSPB, 2021; Scottish Government Environment and Forestry Directorate, 2021). This obscures the severity of these crimes, risking downplayed enforcement and judicial responses [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; Tingay, 2015; Scottish Environment LINK, 2021).
Data limitations across sources
Fragmented data ownership and collection processes provide an incomplete picture of wildlife offences [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; UNODC, 2021). Most crimes are not notifiable or recordable offences [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012; Lavorgna et al., 2020; UNODC, 2021; Ewing et al., 2023). Data lacks granularity, agency comparability, and proactive, in-depth analysis [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; UNODC, 2021). Systemic detection, recording, prosecution and sentencing limitations obstruct robust quantification [high confidence] (Nurse, 2012, 2020; Tingay, 2015; UNODC, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a).
Impacts on responses
Limited data on the nature and scale of wildlife crimes constrains evidence-based solutions and resourcing [high confidence] (Nurse, 2011, 2020; Tingay, 2015; UNODC, 2021). Significant intelligence gaps remain around offences [high confidence] (UNODC, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). Implementing standardised, mandatory recording and data sharing, alongside more proactive analysis, could help inform targeted policies and enforcement [high confidence] (Tingay, 2015; UNODC, 2021; National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a). But, presently, lack of data can enable persistence by obscuring solutions [high confidence].
Summary
In summary, systemic data limitations allow wildlife crimes in Scotland to continue to be obscured, enabling persistence. Major uncertainties exist around the true scale and nature of wildlife crimes in Scotland due to systemic data limitations [highest confidence]. Many offences go undetected and unrecorded, obscuring the full dark figure of crimes committed [highest confidence]. Fragmented data collection and ownership processes provide an incomplete picture across agencies [high confidence]. Data lacks granularity and comparability [high confidence]. With the nature and prevalence of many offences unclear, targeted responses are hampered [high confidence]. Implementing standardised mandatory recording and data-sharing could inform policies and enforcement (high confidence).
Genuine problems and biases enable conflicts
Some wildlife pose tangible problems that spur persecution. Adders are killed over bite risks [medium confidence] (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2022a), while raptors limit gamebird populations central to rural economies [high confidence] (Francksen et al., 2019). Distinguishing cultivated plants from wild-sourced specimens creates enforcement challenges [medium confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020). Data and policies focus disproportionately on certain groups like raptors, neglecting widespread plant trafficking [high confidence] (Lavorgna et al., 2020; Lavorgna and Sajeva, 2021; Whitehead et al., 2021). This overlooks threats to plants and less charismatic species. Such genuine conflicts and taxonomic biases emphasising charismatic fauna over flora and invertebrates drive wildlife crimes [medium confidence].
Divergent perspectives around land use drive wildlife crime
Competing values and interests
At the heart of wildlife crime are competing values and perspectives among stakeholders like landowners, conservationists and officials. For instance, some view landscapes as resources for traditional pursuits like hunting, while others prioritise nature conservation [highest confidence] (Alexander, 2016; Coz and Young, 2020). Reintroduced predators ignite conflicts as symbols of competing interests around land use [highest confidence] (Hodgson et al., 2018; Staddon, 2021; Bavin et al., 2023). Positions become entrenched, with each side depicting divergent narratives aligning with their goals — progress stalls as stakeholders dismiss each other’s arguments [highest confidence] (Redpath et al., 2013; Hodgson et al., 2018; Newton, 2021). Ultimately, wildlife like raptors become proxies for more profound clashes over land use vision between sporting and conservation interests.
Legacy of divergent land use perspectives
Scotland’s history of concentrated private estates amongst elites fuels modern tensions around land use. Large areas of Scotland are controlled by relatively few elite owners, who bought vast private estates in the 18th and 19th centuries due to the ‘Highland Clearances’ [highest confidence] (MacMillan et al., 2010; Glenn et al., 2019; Staddon, 2021). This can disadvantage specific local communities with limited control over land use decisions, particularly regarding housing options or land used for conservation interests [medium confidence] (Glenn et al., 2019). In extreme cases, fears of reprisal for disagreeing with landowners endure in some areas [medium confidence] (Glenn et al., 2019). This history fuels ongoing clashes between sporting, local and conservation interests. As a result, rebuilding trust between farmers, ecologists and other stakeholders remains challenging due to lingering animosity [highest confidence] (Redpath et al., 2013; Kirkland et al., 2021; Staddon, 2021; Bavin et al., 2023). Overall, the legacy of divergent land use visions continues to shape modern disagreements underlying wildlife conflicts [high confidence].
Indirect drivers conclusion
Deficiencies across the criminal justice system [high confidence], legislation [high confidence] and data collection [highest confidence] position wildlife crime as an attractive prospect with minimal risks. Limited funding prevents proper investigation training and units [medium confidence], while inconsistent sentencing [high confidence], legal gaps [high confidence] and opaque prosecution practices [medium confidence] hamper deterrence. Fragmented data collection allows the true scale of crimes to remain obscured [highest confidence], which impacts the ability of the criminal justice system to arrest, prosecute and sentence [high confidence]. Genuine human-wildlife conflicts enable some offences, but biased priorities overlooking plant crimes and invertebrates allow continuation (high confidence). Meanwhile, competing land use visions rooted in Scotland’s history continue fuelling modern wildlife conflicts (high confidence). In this enabling environment, offenders can reasonably anticipate evading detection while facing unclear, but likely lenient, outcomes if caught.
The interplay between direct and indirect drivers
The persistence of wildlife crime in Scotland stems from the interplay between varied direct motivations of offenders and systemic enabling conditions that shape the risks versus rewards of these offences. On the one hand, individual-level drivers include economic incentives, entertainment motivations, cultural factors, attitudes towards animals and more. Financial gains, hobby interests, rural traditions and perceptions of animals all provide direct reasons for committing crimes. Any solutions must address these reasons offenders are compelled to commit wildlife crimes.
However, these motivations do not exist in isolation. Broad societal conditions also facilitate the continuation of wildlife offences by making them low-risk prospects. Dynamics around detection avoidance, weak deterrence, law enforcement deficiencies, legislative loopholes and lack of data coalesce to position these crimes as attractive opportunities with minimal downsides.
Direct drivers provide the intent, while indirect drivers provide the means. Offender motivations supply the rationale to pursue crimes, from profit-driven persecution of economically threatening species, to thrills and status gained from coursing. But factors like opaque online trafficking networks, under-resourced enforcement agencies, and lenient sentencing enable the realisation of motivations in action by lowering risks.
[7] Operation Easter targets egg thieves by sharing intelligence across the UK to support enforcement action.