X Close

Organised Crime Research Network

Home

A UCL-based research network on preventing and controlling organised crime

Menu

Archive for October, 2016

Meet and Greet Event

Patricio Estevez-Soto27 October 2016

Thursday 10th November 2016, 17:30

Sir David Davies Lecture Theatre, Roberts Building UCL

1-19, Torrington Pl, London WC1E 6BT, UK

 

We are pleased to invite you to our next OCRN evening at UCL. As the primary aim of UCL OCRN is to create a networking platform for those interested in the field of organised crime, we are pleased to announce that our next evening will be a networking event where members and prospective members can meet and greet. The UCL OCRN Meet and Greet will kick off with a small talk on current OCRN related progress; this will then be followed by complimentary refreshments.

Whether you are a student looking to meet others like yourself, an academic wanting to scout for new collaborations, a practitioner interested in the latest academic developments in the field of organised crime, please do come and join us!

This event is free, and we welcome anyone who is interested in the topic of organised crime.

If you have any questions, please email us, visit our blog, or contact us via social media.

Review: Wildlife trafficking and its security implications

uctzhid24 October 2016

Last week, we were delighted to have Cathy Haenlein, Research Fellow from the RUSI National Security and Resilience Group Studies, as an OCRN guest speaker. Her talk provided an insight about how wildlife trafficking has been evolving throughout the last years and the different response approaches adopted by countries and international organisations.

Wildlife trafficking is becoming a serious issue across the world and a lucrative criminal activity. Cathy explained there is a lack of consensus and consistency within the legal definition, for instance, it is not clear what are the species included. Hence, the terminology used is imprecise and the dimensions of this activity are insufficiently understood.

Despite the gravity of the threat affecting a vast range of species, wildlife trafficking is not considered a security threat or priority for governments. Three narratives linking security threats to wildlife trafficking: terrorism, organised crime and human security.

Wildlife trafficking is part of organised crime activities as it embeds complex operations, using high-volume transportation and the participation of different actors in the supply chain. It is known that East Africa has source and transit countries for wildlife illegal activities. International organisations such as Interpol have identified kingpins and large shipments have been seized in the region.

Another aspect to point out is that this type of crime faces several challenges for doing research (how to measure it or to get data) as well as prosecution (the role of corruption). However, our expert suggested different responses that might help to develop effective strategies such as community engagement; law enforcement, demand reduction and the identification of money flows.

In the case of terrorism, there is an alleged involvement of al-Shabaab with ivory illicit trade and poaching elephants in Africa. Nevertheless, our expert made the caveat of an overstated discourse regarding the role of terrorism in wildlife trafficking as there is not sufficient evidence suggesting this nexus.

Currently, RUSI is working on a research project and training programme in Kenya and Tanzania funded by the UK Government focused on tracking the illicit funds from illegal wildlife trade. Also, they are undertaking a research programme on the security dimensions of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in collaboration with The Pew Charitable Trusts.

The views expressed in this blog post are the authors own and do not necessarily represent the views of UCL, the Department of Security and Crime Science or the UCL Organised Crime Research Network.

Reflections on Colombia’s “No” vote to the peace referendum

Patricio Estevez-Soto3 October 2016

By Enrique Gutierrez*

Sunday’s Colombian peace referendum results reflect a deep distrust of the FARC guerrillas and highlights the unpopularity of Juan Manuel Santos’s government among the local population. On the one hand, it showed that over six million four hundred voters are not willing to forgive the FARC so easily and are reluctant at the idea of “rewarding” them with political participation without paying for their crimes in jail first. This, of course, was a massive misjudgement on behalf of the government. Furthermore, the arrogance showed by some FARC leaders during speeches and interviews just days before the referendum boosted the anger and reluctance of those who said No on Sunday.

On the other hand, there was a great risk that the President’s unpopularity would affect the results of the referendum. It did. Since taking office in 2010, President Santos has set negative records of approval ratings plummeting to its lowest in May 2016 (only four months before the referendum). Moreover, he was unable to persuade the voters, despite the unprecedented support of the international community.  As The Economist wrote in June 2016, in relation to his inability to be eloquent in public, “he seems more comfortable among bankers than peasants”. Still, it was the peasants who were the direct victims of the conflict who resolutely voted Yes on Sunday.

In this sense, paradoxical (and at the same time unfair) is the fact that the regions that suffered the least consequences of the conflict decided over those who have suffered the most. Paradoxical because in most of the municipalities that have historically been affected by the conflict, the Yes won decisively. For example, Bojaya, which is a municipality in the Pacific region of Colombia, that suffered one of the most atrocious massacres of the conflict in 2002, had an overwhelming 96 per cent of the population voting Yes.

What Follows

The government was clear on saying that if a “No” vote won, both parties would not sit again to renegotiate the agreements. However, reality is different and after acknowledging the results both, government and the FARC have expressed their willingness to retake the negotiations involving ALL parties. Meaning that an apparent “new process” would include the opposition led by former President and now senator Alvaro Uribe Velez.

Thus, the opposition will also have to take responsibility over the result of the referendum and will now have to take a step forward to explain what the new strategy will be to reach a peace agreement with the FARC guerillas without returning to conflict.

Additionally, the call for a constituent assembly, which was initially proposed by the FARC and the opposition, but continuously ignored and rejected by the government, would reemerge. Still, the assembly is a complex and long process that would take at least another year and for which results are uncertain.

Finally, for the other half of the voters who supported the Yes, they cannot lose their hope and must continue supporting the ideal of peace with the largest and oldest guerrilla in the world. In the end, as famous Colombian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez once said, “make no mistake: peaceful madmen are ahead of the future.”


*Enrique Gutierrez currently works as Project Development Officer at the European Centre of Minority Issues Kosovo. He has worked with minority communities who have been systematically marginalised in Kosovo, and victims of the internal conflict and indigenous peoples in conflict zones of Colombia. He holds a Master’s Degree in Theory and Practice in Human Rights from the University of Essex and a BA in Political Science and International Relations from Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogota, Colombia.

The views expressed in this blog post are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of UCL, the Department of Security and Crime Science or the UCL Organised Crime Research Network.