Rethinking Nature Crimes in Africa

What exactly are nature crimes and why should anyone outside policy or academia care?

That was the quiet question sitting underneath the Africa Regional Resilience Dialogue on Nature Crimes held at the University of Nairobi on Wednesday April 15 2026. The event was organized by the Department of Diplomacy and International Studies in partnership with The Africa Centre for the Study of the United States of America (ACSUS), the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GITOC) and the Resilience Fund which is part of GITOC’s broader work. Together, these partners brought the dialogue to life as part of an Africa Regional Resilience Dialogue and Learning Experience, combining academic insight, research and grassroots experience to deepen understanding of organized crime linked to the environment.

At its core, the dialogue was trying to make sense of something often hidden in plain sight. Nature crimes as a form of organized crime. This includes illegal logging, illegal mining, wildlife trafficking, illegal fishing and even smaller and less talked about trades that move through borders and markets every day. These are not isolated acts. They are connected systems that treat nature as a source of profit, often at a serious cost to communities and ecosystems.

From the beginning, the conversations pushed one idea. Nature crimes are not just environmental issues. They are also economic issues, governance issues and survival issues.

One of the tools discussed was the Organized Crime Index, shared by partners from the GITOC. In simple terms, it is a way of mapping how organized crime works in different countries, who is involved and how strong or weak the systems are that try to stop it. It helps show that these crimes are not isolated events, but networks that adapt, shift and respond to pressure.

But even with these tools, a harder question kept coming back. Do these global systems really reflect what is happening on the ground, in villages, fishing communities, forests and border towns where these crimes actually play out?

Because the reality is not only about networks at the top. It is also about conditions on the ground that allow these systems to survive.

But what makes this even more complex is the role of communities.

In many of these spaces, communities are not simply watching from the outside. They are inside the system. Sometimes they are victims. Sometimes they are pressured into participation. And sometimes, because of poverty or lack of options, they see no real alternative.

In places affected by conflict, like parts of Eastern DRC, this becomes even more complicated. Survival, survival economies and illegal trade often sit side by side. It becomes difficult to draw a clean line between what is legal and what is not, and even harder to separate victim from participant.

This is where the dialogue became uncomfortable in an important way. If communities sit at the center of these systems, why are they still often treated as secondary in solutions?

The legal side of the discussion added another layer. Environmental crimes are difficult to prosecute. In many cases there is no clear complainant because nature cannot walk into a courtroom and speak for itself. That creates a gap. Who actually represents the forest, the river or the animals when harm is done?

At the same time, many legal systems are not fully equipped for the speed and creativity of modern illegal markets. Weak enforcement, unclear rules and limited awareness create space for illegal activities to continue even when laws exist on paper. This includes well known crimes like illegal mining and wildlife trafficking, but also smaller and less visible trades that still cause major damage over time.

The Resilience Fund approach was highlighted as one of the practical interventions. It focuses on three main areas. First, providing grants and financial support to community leaders, activists and grassroots organizations working in fragile contexts. Second, building capacity by supporting them to respond to threats such as cyber risks and security challenges linked to criminal economies. And third, strengthening networking and collaboration so that local actors are not working in isolation.

A key point raised was that civil society organizations are often the first line of response where the state is weak or absent. They help identify gaps in systems, raise awareness in communities where information is limited and support prevention at the grassroots level. In many cases, they are also documenting evidence that later informs policy discussions.

As the discussions expanded, sessions on illegal wildlife trade and illegal logging and land conversion brought in field experiences from Resilience Fund partners. Experts like Dr. Willis Okumu and Mr. Valtino Omolo helped explain how these criminal systems operate in practice and how quickly they adapt when enforcement increases. One consistent pattern stood out. Criminal networks are flexible. The systems trying to stop them often are not.

The dialogue then shifted toward solutions and cooperation. What can actually be done?

A lot of attention went to collaboration between different actors. Not just governments, enforcement agencies, but also communities, researchers and local organizations. Because when solutions are designed without the people who live in these environments, they rarely last.

There were also examples discussed where communities are being involved more directly. In some places, improving financial literacy, offering alternative livelihoods and building local partnerships has helped reduce dependence on illegal activities. It is not an immediate fix but it shows that behavior can change when the pressure behind it changes.

What became clear throughout the day is that nature crimes are not just about breaking the law. They sit inside systems shaped by money, survival, opportunity and trust.

When people do not trust the authorities enforcing the rules, they are less likely to follow them. If legal activities do not provide enough income, illegal options start to look more attractive. When communities are left out of decision making, the rules start to feel distant from their reality.

So the problem is not simple.

And neither is the solution.

By the end of the dialogue at the University of Nairobi, one idea stood out. Nature crimes are not separate from everyday life. They are tied to the food people eat, the forests they depend on, the fish in the water and the land they live on.

And that leaves us with uncomfortable but necessary questions.

What happens when survival and the law collide? Who gets to decide what is worth protecting and for whom? And most importantly, can solutions really work if the people most affected are not part of building them.