Species justice and harm to animals - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 115

• crime prevention and the illicit trade in endangered species involving
many different kinds of animals (Wellsmith, 2010; Schneider, 2008,
2012)
• the illegal wildlife market in Africa (Warhol et al, 2003), and in
particular the trade in elephant ivory (Lemieux and Clarke, 2009)
• the linkages between illicit markets involving trade in wildlife and
drugs (South and Wyatt, 2011).
For much of this burgeoning literature the key or central category of
analysis is that of legality rather than harm. If the latter, then 'harm'
is generally constructed in relation to the specific species, rather than
animals as a whole. In this regard research and law enforcement efforts
(especially Interpol) have been concerned with trade in endangered
species - a matter of biodiversity protection - rather than animal rights
and animal welfare per se.
International instruments such as the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) aims
to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and
plants does not threaten their survival. CITES works by subjecting
international trade in specimens of listed species to certain controls,
based upon where the roughly 5,000 species of animals and 28,000
species of plants are situated in the three Appendices to the Convention
that reflect the extent of the threat to it, and the controls that apply to
the trade. From an animal rights perspective, CITES merely legitimates
anthropocentric interests. This is because the intent of CITES is to
regulate the trade in species, not to prevent the trade itself. Moreover,
the mechanisms of the Convention - the Appendices that assign survival
and scarcity values - create and help to sustain the illegal market for
endangered and threatened species. Illegality raises prices, so banning
the trade of certain animals creates a lucrative black market for such
expensive 'commodities'. Yet, regulating such trade perpetuates the
instrumental use of animals for human consumption (metaphorically
as well as literally).
Beirne (2009) observes that rarely have animals been understood in
criminology other than in terms of their legal status as the property
of human masters. That is, laws against poaching - of deer, pheasants,
rabbits and partridges - in England were designed not to protect
animals, but the rights of the rich and powerful to do with these
creatures as they willed at their exclusive command. The point was to
protect one's property, not to protect the animal as such.
Much the same logic applies to law pertaining to animals and primary
industry. The illegal trade in wildlife involves not only the threat to