Written evidence submitted by Newcastle University (AAB0022)

Evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Response to Call for Evidence: Animals Abroad Bill

Joshua Jowitt

Author biography

Dr Joshua Jowitt is a Lecturer in Law at Newcastle University. He is a legal theorist, with expertise in contemporary natural law theory and legal reasoning. He is also interested in Animal Rights Law, and his research in this field has taken him to visiting positions at the Max Planck Centre for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and the Cambridge Centre for Animal Rights Law. He has also contributed to courses in Animal Rights Law at Åbo Akademi in Finland and Hatrpury University in the UK.

This evidence is presented in a personal capacity and does not represent the views of Newcastle University or any other organisation with which the author is professionally affiliated.

Given my expertise, I address the Committee’s specific questions on the themes of:

-          Whether the Government’s proposals on the export and import of hunting trophies will effectively support the conservation of endangered species; and

-          Whether there should be different rules for the trade in animal trophies depending on the setting in which the animal was hunted.

Will the Government’s proposals on the export and import of hunting trophies effectively support the conservation of endangered species?

[1]              The UK Government’s proposals are to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals abroad so as to ensure that UK imports and exports of hunting trophies are not threatening the conservation status of species abroad.

[2]              Any consideration of the legal protections enjoyed by endangered animals abroad must begin with a consideration of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (hereafter ‘CITES’).

[3]              CITES contains appendices in which species considered to be endangered are listed. Listing brings them under the auspices of CITES and imposes restrictions on their trade. These restrictions should be enforced by state signatories to CITES.

[4]              The United Kingdom is a signatory to CITES. It has therefore already committed itself under International Law to restricting trade in products sourced or derived from species considered endangered under the CITES agreement.

[5]              The fact that the United Kingdom already has legal obligations to restrict trade in products sourced or derived from species considered endangered under the CITES agreement ought, therefore, to be the starting point for this Committee.

[6]               Given this obligation exists, incorporating the obligation into domestic law would not create a new obligation. It would merely make an obligation under international law domestically enforceable.

[7]              Making these obligations domestically enforceable will send a strong message that the United Kingdom takes its obligations with regards to conservation of endangered species under international law extremely seriously, and sees itself as a world leader in this regard.

[8]              This move would also be desirable from the point of view of legal certainty and consistency. In translating existing international obligations into domestic law, the Animals Abroad Bill would erase a marked and ultimately arbitrary inconsistency in legal obligations at the domestic and international levels.

Should there be different rules for the trade in animal trophies depending on the setting in which the animal was hunted?

[9]              With regards to this second part of the Committee’s call for evidence, I would like to restate the most appropriate starting point: that the purpose of any Bill would be to prohibit the import/export of hunting trophies so that the conservation status of animals abroad is not threatened.

[10]              Any proposed Bill would therefore be directed against species whose conservation status is already recognised as endangered or otherwise threatened. This is particularly true if the CITES appendices were to be used as the authoritative list of species who would be protected by the proposed Bill.

[11]              A species would simply not be listed in the CITES appendices were it not endangered, and were a suppression of the trade in products sourced or derived from said species not already accepted as desirable under international law.

[12]              Species membership is therefore the most relevant criterion to consider when assessing whether trade in products sourced or derived from animals considered to be endangered should be suppressed. The setting in which said animal was hunted is, by contrast, an arbitrary consideration.

[13]              Were such arbitrariness introduced, it could serve to undermine the certainty and clarity of any proposed domestic law. One might reasonably ask what the relevant difference is between a trophy from an animal hunted in one location from which trade is prohibited, and a trophy from an animal of the same species that is hunted in a location where trade is restricted.

[14]              The very purpose of the rule in question – the protection of endangered species – is cast into doubt if geographical exceptions are introduced to allow trade from certain locations.

[15]              The implicit aim of reducing the desirability and ‘prestige value’ of the product and, by extension, a reduction in the trade of hunting trophies from endangered species, could be made more difficult if individuals perceive the rules as arbitrary or if an alternative route by which such trophies can be legally acquired is identified.

[16]              Introducing a geographical exemption from any ban may also encourage an increase in ‘passing off’ hunting trophies from settings in which trade is suppressed as having been sourced from a permissible setting. This would undermine the effect of any proposed restriction on trade for the reasons already listed in [15].

September 2021