Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Across the world, migratory animals like wildebeest - which rely on movement to find food, water and calving grounds - are under threat. This is mainly because their migration routes are being cut off by settlements, farms, roads and other developments, and the areas where they roam are getting smaller. They also face the additional challenges of poaching and having less food to eat because of livestock overgrazing and agriculture. We found extreme declines in the numbers of migrating wildebeest and loss of most migration routes in Kenya and Tanzania.

The threats facing the various populations differ in each area. The leading causes of decline are poorly planned agricultural expansion, settlements, urban centres, roads and other infrastructure, poaching and competition with livestock for food, space and drinking water. Some threats are driven by increasing human and livestock numbers. The way land is used is changing and there’s also more human-wildlife conflict as more animals come into contact with people.

So, there have been failures on a number of fronts. These include policies that don’t regulate where people settle, wildlife conservation and management policies. A key government wildlife policy failure in Kenya is that it has focused primarily on protected areas. But these areas cover only 8% of the country’s land surface and support only 35% of the wildlife. The other 65% occupy private lands, which all the four threatened wildebeest migrations cross.

A huge problem here is that there isn’t incentive for private landowners to look after wildlife. They receive little to no benefit from wildlife. This is because Kenya banned the use of and trade in wildlife and wildlife products in 1977. This limits opportunities to game viewing. But tourists don’t visit many areas and so other land uses, like agriculture and livestock production, are more appealing.

Urgent action is needed to save these migrations. Saving the migrations means much more regulation, securing more land, collaborating with local communities and, ultimately, reducing human population growth, in particular, regulation of livestock numbers, settlements, farms and roads. Land must be restored - meaning settlements cleared and cultivation on migration routes stopped. Deforestation must also be better managed. And robust law enforcement is needed to reduce the illegal hunting of animals for bushmeat.

The consequences of not acting will be huge. Migrations of zebra and Thomson’s gazelle in Kenya’s Rift Valley and elephants in Kenya have already been lost. Wildebeest could go the same way.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.

Wildlife crimes - like rhino poaching or overfishing-were once considered a “green” matter. But this has changed. Such crimes have moved higher up on global security and policy agendas. This is partly linked to concerns about the extinction of species and the demise of ecosystems. It’s also been caused by the involvement of organised criminal networks in illegal wildlife supply chains.

Rhino poaching has particularly attracted public attention. A lot of protective and controlling national and international measures aimed at preventing the consumer markets and criminal networks that allow the trade to flourish have failed. The problem is that such approaches almost deal with wildlife crime’s signs rather than its root causes: a conflict over access to land, resources and benefits.

The reality is that wildlife conservation continues to benefit economic and political elites. Local communities remain mostly excluded from real benefits, and conservation often comes at a huge cost to them. They lose their land, access to natural resources and cultural sites. They have limited agency and ownership of areas and management. Often the only benefits for communities from wildlife and conservation come from the poaching profits.

Instead of recognising local people as important change agents in wildlife conservation, conservationists are calling for more boots on the ground, helicopter gunships and new technologies. Money is spent on security officials and private investigators. Expensive technologies are brought in to deter poachers.

Some scholars have started to look at the root causes of environmental and wildlife crimes by considering broader economic, political and systemic factors. Their assessment is that community empowerment is key. This will not only address basic inequality and poverty, but can reduce wildlife crime and other types of crime. This is borne out by Namibia’s experiences: there, former poachers have become wildlife guardians. Local communities may become protectors of wildlife and conservation areas if they were granted agency, ownership and benefits.

Although not perfect, the example of communal conservation areas in Namibia provides fascinating insights into the process of encouraging communities. One thing is clear: we need to create happy sustainable communities that benefit from and live in harmony with ecosystems.