Reimagining Nature Crimes in Africa

What are nature crimes, really and why should they matter to anyone beyond policy circles or academia?

That underlying question framed the Africa Regional Resilience Dialogue on Nature Crimes, held at the University of Nairobi on Wednesday, April 15, 2026. The event was convened by the Department of Diplomacy and International Studies in collaboration with The Africa Center for the Study of the United States of America (ACSUS), the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GITOC), and the Resilience Fund part of GITOC’s broader programming. Together, these partners delivered a dialogue and learning experience that blended academic perspectives, research, and grassroots insights to deepen understanding of environmental organized crime.

At its heart, the dialogue sought to unpack something often overlooked: nature crimes as a structured form of organized crime. This spans illegal logging, mining, wildlife trafficking, fishing, and even smaller, less visible trades that move across borders and markets daily. These are not isolated incidents they are interconnected systems that exploit natural resources for profit, often at significant cost to ecosystems and communities.

From the outset, one message was clear: nature crimes extend beyond environmental concerns. They are also economic, governance, and survival challenges.

One of the tools highlighted was the Organized Crime Index, presented by GITOC partners. In simple terms, it maps how organized crime operates across countries identifying key actors and assessing how strong or weak the systems are that attempt to counter it. It reinforces the idea that these crimes are not standalone events but adaptive, evolving networks.

Still, a more difficult question persisted: do these global frameworks truly capture what is happening on the ground in villages, fishing communities, forests, and border towns where these dynamics unfold?

Because the reality is not only shaped by networks at higher levels, but also by local conditions that allow such systems to persist.

What complicates matters further is the role of communities.

In many of these contexts, communities are not merely observers. They are embedded within these systems sometimes as victims, sometimes under pressure to participate, and at times driven by poverty or lack of alternatives to engage in them.

In conflict-affected areas such as parts of the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, the situation becomes even more layered. Survival economies and illegal trade often coexist, making it difficult to draw clear lines between legality and illegality or to distinguish victims from participants.

This is where the dialogue took on a necessary discomfort: if communities are central to these systems, why are they so often treated as secondary in designing solutions?

The legal dimension added further complexity. Environmental crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. Often, there is no clear complainant nature itself cannot stand in court. This raises a critical question: who speaks for the forest, the river, or wildlife when harm occurs?

At the same time, many legal systems struggle to keep pace with the speed and adaptability of modern illicit markets. Weak enforcement, gaps in regulation, and limited awareness create space for illegal activities to persist even where laws exist. This applies not only to widely recognized crimes like wildlife trafficking and illegal mining, but also to smaller, less visible trades that accumulate long-term damage.

The Resilience Fund approach emerged as a practical response. It focuses on three key areas: providing financial support to grassroots actors in fragile settings, strengthening their capacity to respond to risks such as cyber threats and security challenges, and fostering collaboration so local efforts are not isolated.

A key takeaway was the role of civil society organizations as frontline responders, particularly where state presence is limited. They help identify systemic gaps, raise awareness in under-informed communities, and support prevention efforts at the grassroots level. In many cases, they also document evidence that informs broader policy discussions.

As the dialogue progressed, sessions on wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and land conversion brought in field-based perspectives from Resilience Fund partners. Experts such as Willis Okumu and Valtino Omolo illustrated how these criminal networks operate in practice and how quickly they adapt when enforcement measures increase. A consistent theme emerged: criminal systems are highly flexible, while enforcement systems often are not.

Attention then shifted to solutions and collaboration. What can be done?

There was strong emphasis on multi-stakeholder cooperation not just among governments and enforcement agencies, but also involving communities, researchers, and local organizations. Solutions designed without the involvement of those directly affected rarely endure.

Examples were shared where community engagement is beginning to make a difference. Initiatives that promote financial literacy, alternative livelihoods, and local partnerships have shown potential in reducing reliance on illegal activities. While not immediate fixes, they demonstrate that behavior can shift when underlying pressures are addressed.

Throughout the dialogue, one point remained clear: nature crimes are not simply about breaking laws. They exist within broader systems shaped by economic realities, survival needs, opportunity, and trust.

When trust in authorities is low, compliance weakens. When legal livelihoods fail to provide sufficient income, illegal alternatives become more appealing. And when communities are excluded from decision-making, regulations begin to feel disconnected from lived realities.

The issue, therefore, is complex.

And so are the solutions.

By the close of the dialogue at the University of Nairobi, one idea stood out: nature crimes are deeply embedded in everyday life. They are linked to the food people eat, the forests they rely on, the fish in their waters, and the land they inhabit.

This leaves us with difficult but necessary questions.

What happens when survival and legality come into conflict? Who determines what is worth protecting and for whose benefit? And ultimately, can meaningful solutions emerge if those most affected are not actively involved in shaping them.