Introduction

Defining wildlife crime is difficult, and the absence of doing so, can be perceived to have negative impacts on the publics perception of wildlife crime (EAC1 2004). This confusion and associated ignorance means that assessing the true scale of the impact of wildlife crime is impossible and the methods of combating it reduced. Also, where as some areas such as the illegal trade in ivory have a high profile thus high reaction, other areas such as the trade in insects, such as Butterflies for collectors and the pet trade, raises less attention, so slips through the net [sic]. The definition of a crime must carry the need to asses what exactly is the crime too (Hart 2008), so understanding who, takes what from where, also needs to be developed. This is further complicated by the issue that most wildlife crime is species specific, but many environmentalist see protection of the ecosystem as a whole the greater objective, and whilst the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has some 30,000 animals and plants listed within its appendixes, habitat protection falls into other legislation creating a void between the same objective. In 2003, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) with Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations (SNCO) and Non-Governmental Organisations convened in a workshop to identify species and protected sites chosen to be most under threat from wildlife crime (NE2 2005), which shows there is consideration towards the issue of cross over, but Willem Wijnstekers CITES Secretary-General in 2004 stated;
“We are in danger of losing the war against wildlife crime, especially for some very rare animals and plants, unless modern professional law enforcement techniques are directed against criminals.” (UN3 2008).
The UK's, the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) in Wildlife Crime in the UK 2007/08 (2008) defines wildlife crime as; The illegal trade in protected species, crimes involving native species that are endangered or of conservation concern, the persecution of wildlife species, and criminal offences affecting biodiversity (p2).
But does this justify the complexity of wildlife crime and incorporate its many guises? Does the current system provide adequate protection and security towards an increasingly reduced, exploited and attacked natural environment and ecological systems?
Using three examples of wildlife crime, and contrasts of issues within them, this report hopes to develop an opinion towards answering these questions.

2. The Orang-utan

There are two species of orang-utan left in the wild, Pongo abelii (Sumatran Orang-utan) and Pongo pygmaeus (Bornean Orang-utan), both are included in the International Union for Conservation of Natures (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species and so both are included in appendix I of CITES (IUCN4 2008).

The main threat to these animals is habitat destruction, but the other threats facing these animals are hunting, population fragmentation, natural pressures such as fire and the pet/tourist trade. Indeed, a by-product from the timber trade both legal and illegal conducted, is the illegal trade in orang-utans with the routes used by the foresters down rivers and along roads into each forest, the same being travelled by captured apes (Nellemann et al 2008).


2.1. The Illegal pet trade and the Orang-utan
In Indonesia, orang-utans are kept as household pets as they are considered status symbols, or traded for use in the entertainment industry. They are the most expensive primates for sale in Indonesian markets, but once they reach adulthood many are killed or abandoned (Vince 2008).
Apart for CITES, domestic law within Indonesia (UU No 5/1990) prohibits the trade and hunting of the species, however, founder of Borneo Orang-utan Society (BOS), Dr.Ir. Willie Smits stated;
“We intercepted a big smuggling operation.. this one guy [Mr Hanson] smuggled 40 orang-utans within a period of six months to the United States, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, England, Japan and Taiwan… [Hanson] had people on the x-ray machines waiting to be paid off.. 22 baby orang-utans smuggled to Japan from Bali in hand, carry on luggage” (The Science Show 2004).

Many of the orang-utans end up smuggled across boarders internationally to Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Taiwan theme parks where they were trained to perform for visitors. In 2003, Safari World, a huge amusement park in Minburi, Thailand, was raided by Thailand’s Forestry Police with representatives of an Indonesian NGO and Thai police. Safari World was thought to have amassed 140 orang-utans, mainly youngsters many suspected to be taken and smuggled from Indonesia (IPPL5 2008). The raid found 115 orang-utans. Then in 2004, the Thai police, Indonesian Governmental officials, and GNO representatives raided again this time finding 69 orang-utan. The missing 41 were said to have died of natural causes and their carcases destroyed.
"It's really suspicious," said Major General Sawek Pinsinchai, chief of Thai Forestry Police (McGirk 2008).
Safari Worlds orang-utan shows were subsequently closed down. In late 2004, the International Primate Protection League (IPPL), released a report about a theme park called Safari World on the Thailand-Cambodia boarder on the Cambodian island of Koh Khong (IPPL 20086). Cambodian authorities confirmed to the IPPL that no import permits were issued for orangutans by the authority charged with issuing permits, the CITES Management Authority. Clearly the shipment(s) of orangutans into Cambodia were in violation of CITES (IPPL7 2008).

3. The Fox

The issue of fox hunting has to be one of the most contentious issues in Britain. The sport of hunting with horse and hounds goes back around 250 years (LACS8 2008), and today there are 318 registered hunts in England and Wales. With around a 100 members (not including supporters and club members) per hunt and the industry, though subscriptions to the hunting clubs, is worth around £14.9milion a year (SFH9 2008).
The hunts prey, the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), is one of the most successful animals in the world found on nearly all continents. A member of the Canidae, dog family, the fox is successful all over Britain too. It is because of this successfulness that the fox has become so pursued, and argued over in the UK. Foxes as predators, will, given the opportunity, kill most animals it can (including surplus killing). This has bought it into conflict with landowners such as livestock farmers and wild game-bird hunters alike. The hunting with horse and hound developed from this concern. Originally a form of pest control, it developed into a sport over time and into modern day fox hunting and is practiced in many countries in Europe and North America. Other field sports/pest control also developed apart from Horse and Hound (H&H) such as;
o Fell Packs – on foot with dogs after foxes
o Basset Packs – after rabbits, hare and foxes and recognised by the Masters of Basset Hounds Association
o Mink Packs - recognised by the Masters of Mink Hounds Association
o Deer Packs - recognised by the Masters of Deer Hounds Association
o Harrier Packs – mostly taking hares and recognised under the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles
o Hare Coursing

After the introduction of the Hunting Act 2004 (Scotland’s ban came into force 2002), the use of dogs to kill mammals (excluding rabbits) in Britain (not Northern Ireland) was prohibited and the fox became the symbol of attitudes towards hunting both for and against. Since the ban, drag hunts have carried on under the watchful eye of activists associated with the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS).

3.1. Fighting the Ban
Since the ban was bought in, in 2002 for Scotland followed by 2004 for the rest of Britain, there have been many investigations into illegal hunting with dogs (SFH12 2008).
In 2007, Paul McMullen, of Bootle, Merseyside, was fined £750 pounds and ordered to pay £5’000 in costs when he and two other men plus a juvenile (also paying fines of £500 each and costs of £2’896 pound each and their dog was confiscated) were convicted of using a dog (terrier) to kill a vixen. This was the first successful case bought by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) by using the Act. The RSPCA had been called when they had been alerted that McMullen and his friends had been seen digging up a badger set. However, when the RSPCA Officer arrived a vixen was found, removed and then given post mortem. It was determined by the pathologist that the cause of death was multiple deep wounds caused by small dog bite (mauled to death) (BBC10 2008).
Again in 2007, Peter Blackhall and two others were fined £250 pounds each with £80 costs after they pleaded guilty to illegally hunting foxes and badgers with dogs under the Hunting Act. A teenager who was with them was given a caution and the men were ordered immediate forfeiture of their Land Rover (IFAW11 2008).
On YouTube™ also, there are countless posted videos of illegal kills with dogs with titles such as,
“fox killed by big missy real dog”
“Another Day, Another Fox”
And “Never back down”

4. American Ginseng

Panax quinquefolius, or American Ginseng has been used in various cultures as an herbal remedy for generations. Both the American and Asian varieties are taken as adaptogens, aphrodisiacs and stimulants.
The plant grows in wild shady forests in the North America and is a lucrative business in Canada, the United States, China and France. Whilst Canada is the largest suppler of cultivated Ginseug roots, the United States of America (US) is the largest supplier of wild American Ginseng roots. 95% of the plants produced in these manners are exported to Hong-Kong. Four types of root are produced in the Northern Americas;
i. Wild
ii. Cultivated
iii. Wild-stimulated
iv. Woods-grown

P. quinquefolius is listed in CITES Appendix II and Canada issues CITES permits for cultivated roots only. As there are no complete and reliable data on wild populations and because woods-grown and wild-simulated exports are reported as wild, there is a risk that false conclusions are being made that wild populations are not declining as well as risks to wild population from disease and genetic alteration from cultivated to wild stocks. Another concern is that Canadian wild populations are being used to subsidize cultivated stocks too (Sinclair 2005).
Listed as threatened in Canada in 1988 then re-evaluated as endangered in 1999, the plant was listed in the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (schedule I) and protected under Canada Species at Risk Act (SARA). This made it an offence to sell, trade or damage the habitat of the species. The plant was also designated “Espèce Menacée”, the highest category under the Endangered Species Act in Quebec. However, nine populations in Canada alone have been lost to harvesting (COSEWIC13 2000).
Currently, North American wild populations of Panax quinquefolius are suspected to subsidize the market illegally as much as 10% in Canada (worth $73,436 '000 Cdn in 2007*). This number is even heaver on the US wild population, as they supply virtually all of the wild root demands on the market (Sinclair 2005).
* Source: Statistics Canada, May 2008

5. Discussion

5.1. Typically, though frequently in the media spotlight, wildlife crime receives little attention from criminologists (Warchol 2004). The UK’s Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), for example, which successfully seized over 30’000 endangered species/products in the past 10 years, has a yearly budget of around £80’000, compared to the metropolitans overall budget of over £2.5million (WWF13 2008). This is despite that many wildlife crimes, such as the illegal pet trade, are not traded in isolation. Often, such crime forms part of a wider organised criminal net-work including arms, drugs and people trafficking and uses the same net-works and channels (Grieser-Johns et al 2005: Terhune 2008: Roberts 1996). Indeed, with the associated high profits (around $20Billion annually*), low risk of detection and low level of punishment (Sellar 2008), wildlife crime may even be viewed as a ‘soft’ option for criminal gangs and networks.
Though much of the international nature of the industry, international support is required across boarders to combat the smuggling crimes. This means levels of cooperation vary between countries in methods of detection, levels of interest, prioritisation and funding. Orang-utans, for instance, have a high priority in western media because of the high risk to the wild population the smuggling trade posses, the sentient nature of the animal and the relative ease of obtaining international support to combat the crime. Yet, the main threat to the Orang-utan comes from habitat loss posed largely from the Palm Oil industry, an industry aimed mainly at a western market (Nellemann et al 2008). In Indonesia in 2006, the minimum wage in Jakarta was 819,100 Rupiah (Rp) (about $89) per month (Gross & Conner 2006), and with the sale of an Orang-utan at around Rp5’000’000 ($546) on the street markets of Jakarta (OC14 2008), it might be perceived as hypocritical to criminalize and demonise a logger making some extra cash to feed his family, or a theme park owner making money from tourists, when western culture and consumerism has a share in the blame.
*INTERPOL 2008

5.2. All crime, including wildlife crime, is by nature clandestine. Laws and state controls can therefore be seen to necessitate smuggling groups to devise creative and elaborate evasion methods (Andreas 2004). Though this, the treatment of cargo, especially live cargo, can be unnecessarily cruel to invade capture and maximise load and profit (i.e. the 22 baby orang-utans smuggled in carry-on luggage, see. 2.1.). When live cargo is smuggled in such manners, they are not permitted the normal legal animal welfare controls offered to legitimate animal transportation such as water, space, breaks etc. It can maybe then be argued that methods of control in wildlife trade relying on catching people ‘red handed’, only heightens the animal suffering.
Many traffickers utilise the falsification of legitimate documentation. However, to enforce against this requires customs officials to be acquainted with a wide range of expertise including zoological, archaeological, administrate, legal and sometimes geographical expertise. Whilst there is a wide, and ever widening offer of available and appropriate methods of forensic investigational techniques, complex legislation and the point that certain laws only apply to certain species, in certain situations (Defra15 2005), means that investigations into wildlife crimes are hindered and legally restricted in certain areas. Most of the seizures at customs are made in individual passengers luggage rather than postal/courier or freight (Pendry et al 2006) where the real bulk of trafficking happens. Once caught, the real crime, that of removal of the species illegally from the wild (or indeed the illegal poaching for products from), has already been done, add that in regards to the Orang-utan for example, a study by WWF and TRAFFIC discovered that fewer than 10% of people found in illegal possession of the apes were prosecuted (Vince 2008), shows that tackling crimes at borders, is not a effective method of control or conservation.
Wildlife crime that breaks boarders is even harder to control. The opportunities arising in business from the internet has been reflected in the wildlife crime business too. An on-line investigation carried out by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), found 7’122 on-line auctions/advertisements/communiqués, all offering products or live specimens in contradiction to CITES Appendix I & II listed species, offered nationally and internationally (IFAW16 2008). The US was found to be responsible for more than two-thirds of the trade over the net with many of the trade happening internally within the US, however, previous reports by IFAW such as Elephants on High Street (2004), that found a thriving trade in ivory on the internet in the UK, and, Bidding for Extinction (2007), that found on one popular on-line auction site ivory being openly traded in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Netherlands the U.K. and the U.S.. Again, rules regulations and laws governing the trade in endangered species are complex, diverse and differ from country to country. The internet offers a new equation to this too, as market place laws and rules regulating internet commerce, are not unified or reflective of many conservation laws nationally and internationally (IFAW15)
As the American Ginseng showed too, large scale industrial business that causes conservational damage is difficult to regulate as some times there is lacking as to knowledge of whether there is, or to what proportion, a crime is actually being committed. Plus, with the economical benefits provided, whether it be an herb such as Panax quinquefolius picked from the wild in Canada, or Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia) illegally logged in Africa, the political and governmental Will to overcome such problems, might be compromised.

5.3. The rules in CITES that indicates the level of protection towards a particular species by it designation under being placed into Appendix I, II or III, can make it illegal to import a particular species into a country without correct licensing. However, many countries do not put restrictions on types of animals allowed to be kept as pets. In the UK, both the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act (and the Wildlife and Countryside Act for certain native species) which are implemented towards control in pets, are mainly in regards to standards of care and overseeing the licensing of a particular species and will for ‘exceptional circumstances’ allow the keeping of many endangered species including Gorilla and Tiger (Greenwood et al 2001). Legitimate trade in exotic species comes from captive breeding. However, ascertaining what captive breed is, and what is taken illegally from the wild, is not always easy or exact. The issue with this is, if you have an ever increasing population of legally breed species, and a decreasing population of wild species, does the legal population create a sink to hind the illegally trafficked species?
Illegally caught animals that are being trafficked need to be disposed of correctly, humanly and effectively. Re-introduction of a species back into the wild is rarely achievable (Pendry 2006). Most will end up in captive breeding programs, adding to the sink. Zoos and other animal sanctuaries regularly swap and transport animals transnational for their different breeding programs. Zoos are also obligated to regulate by different strategies their animal stocks (NCBI16 2008). However, surplus animal stocks for the successful zoos can be auctioned off to the highest bidder (Lewandowski 2003). Once a seized animal enters the system, it is then legitimised and gone from illegal to legal. The animal then legitimately enters the system of trade not to dissimilar from the illegal trade, where rarely breeding programs will successfully allow for the release of animals back to the wild because, although out of the 6000 or so endangered animals 120 are in captive breeding programs, most of these animals will be unfit for release through the lack of development in survival skills and resistance to common diseases (Grant 2006).

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

There is no real way of defining wildlife crime as it is too extensive. This literature has barely touched the surface (many other issues are to be raised upon the trade in products derived from animals such as skins, medicine, antiques etc.)
One thing has been shown though. The methods of control need to be pushed not at boarders within governmental level operations, but actually where the crime is occurring, in nature. Revenue needs to be established in the actual communities where conservation is needed, to push community involvement in conservation. Legislation and management implemented towards Protected Areas needs to be established that protect the entire ecosystem and incorporate all its biodiversity, and possibly also needs to have the people that cohabit them included in the same protection.
It is important not to forget our responsibilities locally. The attitudes towards legislation such as the Hunting Ban shows that ‘our’ society has failed to reach a harmonious relationship in our modern world with nature. To some extent, we need to tackle our sociological issues before we can hope to solve others.


7. Bibliography

Andreas P. (2004). Illicit international political economy: the clandestine side of globalization, Review of International Political Economy 11:3 August 2004: 641–652

British Broadcasting Company10. (01.12.2008). Man convicted under Hunting Act, BBC News, New 24, BBC New Website, BBC, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/6497597.stm

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2000). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the American ginseng Panax quinquefolius in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 17 pp.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs14. (2005). Wildlife Crime: A guide to the use of forensic and specialist techniques in the investigation of wildlife crime, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Crown copyright, 2005, Bristol

Grant C. (2006). The no-nonsense guide to Animal Rights, New Internationalist, 2006, Oxford

Greenwood A.G., Cusdin P.A., & Radford M. (2001). Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, June 2001, for International Zoo Veterinary Group, Published by Defra, 2001, Bristol

Grieser-Johns A, Thompson J, Mulliken T, Kirkpatrick C, Compton J, Howe S (ed). (2005). Going, Going, Gone: The Illegal Trade in Wildlife in East and Southeast Asia, July 2005, Environment and Social Development Unit (EASES), of the East Asia and Pacific Region of the World Bank, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) Network & The World Bank, 2005, Washington

Hart M. (20.11.2008). Crime and Deviance, Edinburgh's Telford College, 2002, available at http://www.rsc-ne-scotland.ac.uk/map2learn/mindmaps/Crime%20and%20Deviance/index.html
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee1. (2004). Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime, Twelfth Report of Session 2003–04, authority of the House of Commons London, The Stationery Office Limited, 2004, London
International Fund for Animal Welfair11. (01.12.2008). The Ban on Hunting with Dogs: Successful Prosecutions, 2008 International Fund for Animal Welfare, available at http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/join_campaigns/national_regional_efforts/ifaw_in_action_united_kingdom/the_ban_on_hunting_with_dogs/the_hunting_act_explained/successful_prosecutions.php

International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2004). Elephants on the High Streets, An investigation into ivory trade in the UK, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), March 2004, IFAW, 2004, London

International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2007). Bidding for extinction: A snapshot survey of illegal trade in elephant ivory on eBay™ sites in: Australia • Canada • China • France • Germany • Netherlands • UK • USA, IFAW, 2007, Brussels

International Fund for Animal Welfare15. (2008). Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web, IFAW, 2008, Brussels

International Primate Protection League6. (24.11.2008). Cambodian Safari Park’s Orangutan Collection, December 2004, IPPL website, available at http://www.ippl.org/2004-cambodia-park.php

International Primate Protection League7. (24.11.2008). The Safari World Orangutan Scandal, August 2004, IPPL website, available at http://www.ippl.org/2004-safari-world.php

International Union for Conservation of Nature4. (21.11.2008). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN Red Data Site, available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/search

League Against Cruel Sports8 (02.12.2008). Fox Hunting Before the Ban, The League Against Cruel Sports, LACS website 2008, available at http://www.league.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=1712

Lewandowski AH. (2003) Surplus animals: the price of success, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, October 1, 2003, Vol. 223, No. 7, Pages 981-983
McGirk J. (24.11.2008). Thai police investigate deaths of 41 orangutans in theme park scandal, Independent World, Independent News and Media Limited, published on Sunday, 8 August 2004, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thai-police-investigate-deaths-of-41-orangutans-in-theme-park-scandal-555788.html

National Centre for Biotechnology Information16 (2008). Consensus Document Responsible Reproductive Management: Guiding Principles, NCBI, 2008, [unknown]

National Wildlife Crime Unit. (2008). Wildlife Crime in the UK 2007/08, NWCU & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2008, [unknown]

Natural England2 (2005). Wildlife crime conservation priorities, March 2005, English Nature (NE), 2005, [unknown]

Nellemann, C., Miles, L., Kaltenborn, B. P., Virtue, M., and Ahlenius, H. (Eds). (2007). The last stand of the orangutan – State of emergency: Illegal logging, fire and palm oil in Indonesia’s national parks. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, 2007, Norway

Orangutan Conservancy14. (03.12.2008). Illegal Trade in Indonesian Markets Puts Wildlife in Danger, July 23, 2008, Orangutan Conservancy, available at http://www.orangutan.net/archives/date/2008/07

Pendry, S., Inskipp,C. and Allan,C. (2006). Wildlife Trade Law: a UK Enforcer’s Factfile. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK

Roberts AM. (1996). The Trade in Drugs and Wildlife, Animals' Agenda Volume 16, No. 5, Nov. Dec. 1996, p. 34-35.

Sellar JM. (2008). Combating Wildlife Crime, talk given by Mr. John M. Sellar - CITES Secretariat, Switzerland, Talk Online Publication: Nov-08, Henry Stewart Talks, available at http://www.hstalks.com/main/browse_talk_view.php?t=1043&s=1043&s_id=384

Sinclair A. (2005). American Ginseng: Assessment of market trends, TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 20 No. 2 (2005) 71-81
Source: Statistics Canada, May 2008, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ginseng Statistics, available at http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1174495359716&lang=e

Support Fox Hunting12. (03.12.2008). News Archive (Page 2/2), Scottish Huntsmen charged under new ban - 1 May 2003, SFH 2008, available at http://www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk/news_archive_2.shtml

Support Fox Hunting9. (02.12.2008). Information on hunting including facts and figures, Support Hunting Association 2008, available at http://www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk/facts_figures.shtml

Terhune L. (04.12.2008). Wildlife Trafficking Is a Serious Problem, Lucrative Business, 16 June 2008, America.gov, U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs, 2008, available at http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/June/20080616142333mlenuhret0.8286859.html?CP.rss=true

The Science Show. (2004). The Science show: 27th November 2004 – Endangered Orang utans, ABC, available at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1249762.htm

TRAFFIC. (2006). Wildlife Trade Law: a UK enforcer’s fact file, TRAFFIC International, 2006, Cambridge

United Nationas3. (20.11.2008). Daily Press Briefing by The Office of the Spokesman for the Secretariat-General 6th October 2004,Near-verbatim transcript of today’s noon briefing by Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the Secretary-General, United Nations, available at http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2004/db041006.doc.htm

Vince G. (26.11.2008). Orang-utans killed for illegal trade, New scientist, June 2005 , G Vince, Reed Business Information Ltd, 2008, New Scientist website, available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7529

Warchol, G L. (2004). The Transnational Illegal Wildlife Trade', Criminal Justice Studies, 17:1,57 — 73

Wich S. A., Singleton I., Utami-Atmoko S. S., Geurts M. L., Rijksen H. D. and van Schaik C. P. (2003). The status of the Sumatran orang-utan Pongo abelii: an update, Oryx, The International Journal of Conservation, (2003), 37 : 49-54 Cambridge University Press

World Wildlife Fund13. (02.12.2008). Budget cuts to reduce London’s wildlife crime unit by half, WWF-UK, 2008, WWF website, available at http://www.wwf.org.uk/search_results.cfm?uNewsID=650