Green criminology and the issue of wildlife trafficking

Green criminology is often defined as the study of environmental harms through criminological frameworks. However, this perspective is more than a harm-based approach serving as a meeting point between environmental issues and traditional criminology. Green criminology not only addresses issues of rights and justice regarding the environment and the nonhuman animals, but it does so while acknowledging them an intrinsic value whatever the one they are given by a society (^{Cao Ngoc and Wyatt, 2013}). In other words, the concept of "harm" is viewed as a socially and culturally constructed one and is thus studied beyond its legal definitions (^{Stretesky, Long and Mill, 2013}). Such a perspective is certainly relevant to the study of wildlife trafficking because the value of wild animals is not without being subjected to an anthropocentric view and, so, to some change over time regardless of the legislations in place (see ^{Van Uhm, 2018}).

The term "wildlife" refers to fauna and flora. In this article, however, we focus on the former, which relates to a variety of species including mammals, insects, birds, reptiles and fishes but excludes notably domestic animals and those submitted to exploitation for agricultural purposes (^{South and Wyatt, 2011}). Wildlife trafficking is, thus, the crime targeting their illegal trade that involves various actions such as poaching - which includes theriocide, defined as the killing of animals by humans (^{Beirne, 2014}), and abduction, defined as the taking of animals from their natural habitat against their will (^{Sollund, 2011}). Other illegal actions included in the legislations are the sale and/or purchase of endangered species and any by-products of those species whose hunting is regulated by permits or quotas (South and Wyatt, 2011).

The legal frameworks governing wildlife trafficking are mostly connected to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. At the international level, CITES aims to ensure that the trading of species does not threaten their survival. It classifies species in three appendices according to the level of protection they need, and determines whether their international trade is authorized, regulated or prohibited. Appendix I lists more than 800 species considered in immediate danger of extinction and whose traffic is completely banned. Appendix II lists vulnerable species whose traffic is instead regulated with export and sometimes import permits to ensure they do not face global extinction. Appendix III, finally, lists species designated as vulnerable in specific countries and benefiting additional protection within the borders of those countries.

Wildlife trafficking is among the most lucrative illegal activities, generating annual global profits estimated between US$5 billion and $20 billion (^{Hansen, 2014}; IUCN, 2011; ^{Wyler and Sheikh, 2008}). By including the illegal fish market, the annual profits estimation rises between US $15 billion to $43,5 billion (^{Agnew et al., 2009}). Even if these estimates are likely lower than the real numbers, considering much of the illegal trading is not detected by authorities (^{Cao Ngoc and Wyatt, 2013}), wildlife trafficking is still the second largest illegal economy closely behind the illicit drug one (^{Warchol, 2004}). More so, wildlife trafficking continues to grow, posing an ever-greater threat to the survival of many species and the ecosystems of which they are a part of. For example, elephants are now poached at a rate of three times higher than they were in 1998. Also, the poaching of rhinoceroses has increased from 13 individual victims in 2007 to 630 in 2012, leading to the extinction of two subspecies in 2011: the black rhinoceros and the Javan rhinoceros (^{Tachford, Allgood and Told, 2013}). ^{Rosen and Smith (2010)} note that a " large number of illegal wildlife are traded successfully on a regular basis" (p.27).

In addition to the threat to the survival of species, wildlife trafficking also has significant consequences on humans. Indeed, wildlife rangers and protection officers face a considerable threat from poachers. Over the last 10 years, between 3,000 and 5,000 rangers have been killed by poachers, who are often heavily armed (^{Tachford, Allgood and Told, 2013}). Trafficking also threatens the sustainable development of many countries, leading to the proliferation of firearms, undermining the security of citizens, and aggravating problems of corruption (Tachford, Allgood and Told, 2013). In addition, wildlife trafficking poses a threat to public health by circumventing sanitary controls designated for the trading of live and dead animals and, thus, creating a perfect environment for the spreading of zoonotic diseases. This situation is not without compromising the health of local populations, while also increasing the risks of international pandemics (^{Hickey, 2013}).

There is, thus, no doubt that green criminology should look more closely to the issue of wildlife trafficking. More so, it needs to better understand how it is changing along with the growth of the Internet.

Internet as an important tool for illegitimate activities

Since its democratization in the 1990s, the Internet has grown exponentially. Nowadays, this technology is used by nearly half of the world's population (The World Bank, 2016). Its success mainly rests on its ability to establish a global communication network, eliminating so conventional notions of distance (^{Pastor-Satorras and Vespignani, 2007}). The Internet has revolutionized interpersonal communications, the distribution and accessibility of informations as well as legitimate economical activities (^{O'Neill, 2000}). However, criminal activities have also benefited from it, adapting and moving towards a new form of crime called "cybercrime". Cybercrime could be defined as an illegal act accomplished or facilitated by the use of a networked computer (Wall, 2007), including offences such as hacking and fraud that already exist within the criminal justice system (Wall, 2007); drug and wildlife trafficking, when accomplished online, falls under this category. The use of the internet increases the efficiency of these traditional crimes, providing more opportunities for illegal activities. Considering offenders have now a global reach, they have access of an international potential of sellers and buyers for illicit goods and services (O'Neill, 2000). Cybercrimes also include new offences such as piracy (^{Martin, 2014}). More so, there are many tools offenders can use to cover their tracks online, making it hard to trace them down. They provide anonymity and facilitate the commission of crimes (Martin, 2014). In other words, while the Internet allows to communicate and gather information faster, it also restricts potential detection by authorities and increases offenders' profits by giving them access to an international market (O'Neill, 2000).

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Internet does not always facilitates the commission of crimes. For instance, it is suggested that traditional counterfeiting markets tend to move into the virtual world by taking advantage of online auction platforms such as eBay (^{Treadwell, 2011}). However, online prostitution markets have removed sex workers between the ages of 30 and 40 due to the increase in the online demand for women of other age groups (^{Cunningham and Kendall, 2011}).

Thus, the following two sections explore the use of the Internet for both drug and wildlife trafficking. We begin by examining how these illegal activities take place on virtual marketplaces through the Surface Web and, then, on the deeper web.

Drug trafficking on the Internet

The Surface Web

The Surface Web is the - small - portion of the Internet accessible with standard web search engines such as Google; and drug trafficking does occur on it, only less frequently than on the deeper web.

The production, trade and use of drugs considered as illicit are governed by the International Drug Control Convention, which includes substances such as opiates, cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines and other psychoactive substances (UNDOC, 2016). Counterfeit medicines and prescription drugs consumed for recreational purposes are also included, as they are unregulated synthetic psychoactive substances (^{Ghodse, 2010}). It is important to make the distinction between these different types of drugs considering that the illegal online markets could not be the same depending of the type. Pharmaceuticals, for example, are often sold through unaccredited online pharmacies that operate illegally (^{Scammell and Bo, 2016}). The proportion of illegal pharmacies is substantial; in a study of 3160 online pharmacies, only 4 were accredited (Ghodse, 2010). These types of sites continue to expand, with a 70% increase between 2006 and 2007 (Ghodse, 2010). Half of medicines from non-accredited pharmacies have been found to be counterfeit, representing a market estimated at 78 billion euros in 2010 (Scammell and Bo, 2016). Even so, these online pharmacies appear to have an impact on consumption. Indeed, a 1% increase in admissions to centers for substance abuse is reported with every 10% recorded growth in high-speed internet usage due to drugs available online at these pharmacies (^{Goldman and Jena, 2011}). These specific pharmaceutical markets proliferate as websites and exploit the loopholes in the legislations regarding these substances (^{Lavorgna, 2014}a). In Europe, there is no uniform regulation for the online sale of medicine. Sites exploit this fact by locating their businesses in European countries where regulation is favorable for the commercialization of such substances, while sending them around the world (Scammell and Bo, 2016). Thus, the line between the legality and illegality of certain medicines and other synthetic drugs is often unclear, both for consumers and the authorities. These substances also tend to be less socially stigmatizing than drugs that are perceived to be harder such as heroin and cocaine (Lavorgna, 2014a). For the most part, illegal pharmacies do not attempt to hide their tracks, exposing themselves openly on the Internet (Lavorgna, 2014a). However, the prices for pharmaceuticals on these platforms are fairly high; they are often 400% to 860% more expensive than the prices of the legal pharmacies. Therefore, some suggest that the dark web could play an important role in drug sales as a cheaper and more reliable alternative for consumers and other dealers (Scammell and Bo, 2016).

Social medias have also been used as a platform for drug trafficking, although it does not provide the anonymity of crypto-markets in the exception of Facebook that has recently allowed access to the site from the dark web (^{Thanki and Frederick, 2016}). Products are advertised on social platforms through the use of hashtags, and transactions follow mechanisms that differ from crypto-markets and online pharmacies. While exchanges may occur through social medias applications such as WhatsApp, the transactions often take place in a physical space (Thanki and Frederick, 2016). Social medias may also provide both informations on where to get drugs and recommendations or instructions on how to access the dark web. Additionally, social medias may increase the demand for drugs by normalizing behaviors and attitudes related to drug use. For example, social media can be used to share photos and videos of positive drug-related experiences and, so, raises discussion on forums about how to use drugs or manufacture them (Thanki and Frederick, 2016).

The Deep Web

The deeper web is the most important portion of the Internet. The Deep Web is the websites that can't be accessed with standard search engines, while the dark web is a small part of the deep web that is intentionally hidden and that can only be accessed through encryption. Access to the dark web is made possible with the use of protocol softwares such as Tor, providing so some anonymity for the navigation and communication (^{Martin, 2014}). The sites on the dark Web that selling drugs (synthetic drugs, cannabis, heroin, etc.) are called crypto-markets, defined as "online forums on which goods and services are exchanged between users by concealing their identities through digital encryption" (Martin, 2014: 2). These crypto markets use encryption technologies regarding virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and enables transactions between the different players to be performed in anonymity without the involvement of external banking institutions (Martin, 2014). Traffickers appreciate these platforms because they provide low risk of being caught and offer an access to a larger clientele (^{Aldridge and Décary-Hétu, 2016}). While sellers can advertise their products, buyers can compare the quality of different products in regard to the seller's ratings (Martin, 2014). As a result, the crypto-markets redraw the dynamics between seller and buyer (^{Mounteney, Oteo and Griffiths, 2016}) of the virtual platforms such as eBay. The fact that a quarter of the revenues generated on Silk Road, a crypto-market dedicated to illicit drug selling and now shut down, comes from wholesaling suggests that a good proportion of buyers become resellers on the online market. The crypto-markets would thus be like virtual brokers connecting sellers and retailers (Aldridge and Decary-Hétu, 2016).

Conclusion

Drug traffickers exploit different virtual platforms depending on the drugs and the risks involved. Drugs that are more socially tolerated and/or not forbidden by law can be found on the Internet or social medias, while drugs less socially tolerated and/or forbidden by law are rather found on the dark web because of its providing of complete anonymity regarding both communications and transactions. Also, the organization of drug trafficking has evolved with the ability of actors to bypass certain intermediaries, making their purchases directly on-line from wholesalers. This organization is flexible and allows new players to enter the market as an extension, rather than a replacement, of the physical market. More so, the Internet allows to better manage drug production by adapting to demands within short timeframes; and the various virtual platforms extend the network of contacts between criminal peers for them to gain access to potential new customers. Considering that the competing traffickers’ prices are known leads vendors to adapt and make promotional offers in order to attract new customers (^{Lavorgna, 2014}a). Thus, while the Internet has forced vendors to employ marketing and customer loyalty strategies used in licit trades, the anonymity of the communications and transactions help them convince the potential buyers (Lavorgna, 2014a). Finally, the Internet allows drug traffickers to communicate faster with each other to put, notably, put in place countermeasures against any attempts made by the authorities to disrupt the online market (Lavorgna, 2014a, 2016).

Wildlife trafficking on the Internet

The Surface Web

Wildlife traffickers, as drug traffickers, take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Internet. However, they use existing legitimate platforms such as auction sites, classified ads and discussion forums (e.g. ^{Beardsley, 2007}; Government of Australia, 2004; ^{Hernandez-Castro and Roberts, 2015}; IFAW, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2014a; INTERPOL, 2013; ^{Yu and Jai, 2015}). Most of the data on wildlife trafficking on the internet is limited to monitoring ads posted on sites within a defined period of time. This type of data does not provide a clear picture of the extent to which the Internet is used by traffickers, nor if this use is increasing. Nevertheless, it is clear that the internet is used to facilitate the illegal trade in wildlife. In 2005, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) established the first portrait of the wildlife market on the Internet. IFAW (2005) reported almost 9,000 ads for animals and animal-derived products in only one week. While the investigation concerned the ads accessible from the UK, a good part of those ads was published on US-based websites. The majority of the ads were for ivory, and the predominance of this specific product was also observed in their researches (IFAW, 2008, 2014a; Yu and Jai, 2015). Although, live animals were also advertised, as for examples a gorilla and a tiger respectively in sale for over $9,000 and $70,000. A more recent report of IFAW (2014a) found 33,006 classified ads within a six-week period, with an estimated total value closed to $11 million; the report also showed a higher percentage of live animals for sale, accounting for nearly half of the advertisements. Fifty-six percent of these posts were from China (IFAW, 2014a). It also appears that a substantial number of unique players are involved in these virtual markets, with almost 67% of sellers attached to a single ad (IFAW 2008). It is interesting to note that not only IFAW works on shutting down illicit websites, but it also it also works in "partnership" with legal websites - such as eBay - to take down illegal wildlife trades (see IFAW, 2014b).

The main platform used by illegal sellers is the eBay auction site (IFAW, 2007, 2008). Despite the fact that eBay officially instituted a global ban against this crime (^{Sollund, 2016}), it is still particularly popular for the trading of ivory products. It could be explained by the fact that regulations between eBay’s various national branches (eBay.com, .uk, .fr, etc.) are vague and inconsistent (IFAW, 2007). These flaws are exploited by traffickers in two ways. First, traffickers advertise their ivory products as “faux ivory” (Sollund, 2016) or as antique pieces, which allows them to avoid eBay’s ban (INTERPOL, 2013). Secondly, if a trafficker is banned, he or she can simply move to an eBay site in a country with less rigid policies towards these products (IFAW, 2007). It is also possible for a seller to repost previous advertisements that have been removed from the site. Thus, eBay’s intentions remain unclear considering that it protects the confidentiality of the sellers even after they have been requested to withdraw a particular ad (IFAW). The presence of illegal wildlife products on their sites may, in fact, represent a conflict of interest since the company profits from wildlife trades through the sales commission is affiliated with other companies used by traffickers such as Craigslist, Skype, Kijiji and PayPal (IFAW, 2008).

However, in recent years, traffickers mostly moved their activities to social medias. Before 2011, the majority of the online trafficking was distributed between small auction platforms and other forums as only less than 10% took place on social medias.; in 2012, it was 18%. By 2015, social medias such as Facebook and Instagram accounted for almost 80% of the online wildlife trafficking (Bouhuys and Van Scherpenzeel, cited in ^{Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016}). After having completed a 50-hours observation on 14 Facebook groups, the organization TRAFFIC reports the extent of the phenomenon on these new platforms. It has identified 236 individual ads and more than 300 live animals sold, 93% of which were species protected by different governments or CITES (Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016). In fact, a large number of players are involved in wildlife trafficking via social medias. The publications were posted by 106 different traffickers, while the total number of followers and active members of these groups was 68,000 users. The value of nearly the third of the products listed was generally between $27,700 and $43,100 (Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016). Another report suggests that many products from tigers, such as canine teeth or skin fragments, are easily found on Facebook and deliverable by mail considering the small size of these items allows them to be sent unnoticed (Stoner, Krishnasamy, Wittmann, Delean and Cassey, 2016). Other researchers also mention that large quantities of ivory are sold in China through social medias (^{Hernandez-Castro and Roberts, 2015}). As for drug trafficking, it seems that animal traffickers on Facebook complete their transactions using other digital medias such as WhatsApp or BlackBerry Messenger to reach a greater anonymity. Finally, a number of traffickers on Facebook offer international deliveries (Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016).

The increasing popularity of social medias amongst traffickers can be explained by the many advantages they offer over more traditional sites such as eBay. Posting on social medias is free, and traffickers can control their accessibility. Most of the Facebook groups monitored were set to a "closed" privacy setting (^{Krishnasamy and Stoner 2016}; ^{Yu and Jai, 2015}), requiring permission from a group administrator or an invitation from a group member in order to join (Facebook, 2016). This privacy feature is also found on Instagram accounts (Instagram, 2017). Traffickers can thus use social medias to advertise and select customers while enjoying a broad international audience (Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016). Individuals can also repost group announcements to their personal pages if they want to reach a larger audience. Acting as an intermediary between traffickers and buyers, individuals can sell animals and products to the "clients" of their pages with a certain profit margin from the traffickers - a technique that allows traffickers to sell their "merchandise" more faster and through an extensive network (Yu and Jai, 2015).

The Deep Web

It appears that there are very few, if any, wildlife traffickers on the Deep Web. ^{Harrison, Roberts and Hernandez-Castro (2016)} examined 9,852 advertisements in virtual marketplaces listed on two main directories of the dark web. Within these ads, they searched for 121 keywords related to the illegal wildlife trade. They only found one positive result: a species of cactus - listed in Appendix II of CITES - that is used as a hallucinogen. Thus, even if unlisted specialist sites are a plausible means for trafficking wildlife, the authors conclude that there is little evidence to support the existence of a wildlife market on the dark web (Harrison, Roberts and Hernandez-Castro, 2016). More so, the drug trafficking community on the dark web appears to have little tolerance for wildlife traffickers, as the later are met with strong criticism when they attempt to sell animals-related products (^{Sullivan, 2016}). Some researchers also explain the absence of illegal wildlife trading on the dark web with the fact that traffickers can act on the Internet (Harrison, Roberts and Hernandez-Castro, 2016), and thus have little need to conceal their activities especially considering that the dark web could restrict their audience. More so, some markets, including the sale of rhinoceros horns, are already well established in the physical world. These traffickers may also not have an interest in acquiring the technological skills required to move their markets to the dark web (Harrison, Roberts and Hernandez-Castro, 2016; Sullivan, 2016).

Conclusion

Wildlife trafficking is present both on legitimate platforms and, particularly since 2011, on social medias; it appears, in fact, that traffickers do not see the need to sell on the dark web. However, the Internet has not had a perceptible effect on poaching itself, except perhaps in cases where poachers kidnap or kill wild animals to meet online demands (^{Lavorgna, 2014}b). Nevertheless, traffickers obtain a certain advantage through the Internet. By providing anonymity and access to an international clientele, legitimate sites advertise the sale of endangered species without requesting authentication. Even in cases where permits are required, these permits are easily duplicated on the Internet and can be used for multiple sales (IFAW, 2008). Also, considering the internet is used to facilitate communications and network management through instant messaging services, it provides access to information concerning wildlife trafficking (geographical localization, care guidance, legal framework, tracking of shipments, etc.) as well as the opportunity to advertise to a larger audience. Finally, the internet makes it possible for traffickers to use intermediaries regarding the sell of wildlife, allowing for a more unstructured organization as more players enter the market with fewer human resources (Lavorgna, 2014b).

Similarities and overlaps between online wildlife and drug trafficking

The objective of this article was to examine the virtual markets of both drug and wildlife trafficking in order to determine whether or not they share similarities, as their physical ones do (see ^{South and Wyatt, 2011}). It seems, however, that these two types of trafficking diverge more than they converge when happening online. While drug trafficking is particularly well established on the dark web and also has sales platforms for prescription drugs on the Surface Web, wildlife trafficking is mostly absent from the former and rather operates through advertisements on the later via legitimate auction platforms. Nevertheless, the two markets do converge when it comes to the use of social medias. They both use social media as promotional tools for their "products", and favor alternative means of communication in order to finalize exchanges and transactions (^{Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016}; ^{Thanki and Frederick, 2016}). Also, wildlife traffickers exploit loopholes in a similar way to the illegal sale of pharmaceuticals. Indeed, while illegal pharmacies not only use the lack of consistent international legislations regulating online pharmacies but also the thin borderline between the legality and illegality of certain synthetic substances (^{Lavorgna, 2014}a; ^{Scammell and Bo, 2016}), wildlife traffickers take advantage of the ambiguities regarding the regulations of platforms such as eBay to advertise where rules are the most flexible. Wildlife traffickers may also benefit from the absence of online national measures aiming to enforce the CITES regulations. In 2008, only the Czech Republic responded positively to the CITES request for member countries to implement satisfactory measures to combat online trafficking (INTERPOL, 2013). More so, wildlife traffickers take directly advantage of the CITES regulations. For example, under CITES, ivory may legally be sold as an antiquity. Traffickers can thus advertise their ivory products as antiquities in order to escape the filters of various virtual platforms (IFAW, 2007; INTERPOL, 2013).

The Internet also provides for both wildlife and drug traffickers the ability to promote their "products" on a larger scale and to access a broad international audience and instant communication with buyers. However, wildlife traffickers do not seem to have implemented marketing strategies in the contrary of drug traffickers who offer discount schemes for drugs (^{Scammell and Bo, 2016}). This difference is understandable, because the types of purchases are not the same. Customers buying drugs do so, mainly, to consume them, while customers buying wildlife products do so to collect them; therefore, purchases made by the later are generally more sporadic. The lack of marketing strategies in wildlife trafficking would still need further exploration because wildlife products could also be bought on a regular basis due to therapeutic beliefs or by some collectors addicted to internet auctions (^{Sollund, 2016}).

More so, unlike many drug traffickers who pay attention regarding the protection of their anonymity, wildlife traffickers do not appear to share the same concern. If drug traffickers hide their identities when illegally selling drugs (^{Scammell and Bo, 2016}) through encryption technologies (^{Martin, 2014}), wildlife traffickers do not - necessarily - considering they use licit platforms (IFAW, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2014); and there is, in fact, little evidence to support the presence of the later on the Deep Web (^{Harrison, Roberts and Hernandez-Castro, 2016}). The lack of concern of wildlife traffickers regarding anonymity could be linked to a loose enforcement of the laws by agencies (^{Sollund, 2013}), but may also be a result of the failure enforce legislation on wildlife trafficking from various websites. Without having the same pressure as drug traffickers have, wildlife traffickers have little incentive to conceal their identities.

Finally, a possible overlap between the two virtual markets - as discussed for their physical one in regard to poaching and supply of drugs hidden in animals sold on the market (see ^{South and Wyatt, 2011}) - remains uncertain. It could be because of the Internet only being used at the moment of distribution, and not in the initial stages of trafficking (^{Lavorgna, 2014}a, 2014b). It also could be because the Internet has not supplanted the physical market for wildlife trafficking but has, instead, extended it for new players to join. Thus, the activities of these virtual players would not cross paths with the ones involved in online drug trafficking. This specific hypothesis would implies a problematic in terms of species survival considering it only adds pressure on wild animals.