Author: Chandrani Chakraborty, Legal Research scholar, Motherhood University, Roorkee.
E-mail: chakrabortychandrani7@gmail.com
Co-author: Ashu Shukla, LL.M in Constitutional law, MNLU, Aurangabad.
E-mail: ashushukla7778@gmail.com
***This article has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ)
Volume 1, Issue 7, 2025.
ABSTRACT
The illegal trade in wild plants is a pervasive yet often overlooked threat to biodiversity, environmental security, and sustainable development. While international and national legal frameworks have been developed to address environmental crimes, enforcement of regulations regarding flora lags behind. This paper delves into the scope and impacts of the illicit trade in wild plants, explores the effectiveness of international legal instruments such as CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and examines judicial decisions that illustrate how courts are beginning to grapple with these issues. It argues for stronger legal enforcement, judicial engagement, and community participation to protect wild flora globally.
Keywords: Illegal Trade of Wild Plants, Biodiversity Conservation, Environmental Law, CITES, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Judicial Decisions, Plant Trafficking, Environmental Crime, International Environmental Law, Public Interest Litigation, Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity, Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), Forest and Wildlife Protection.
INTRODUCTION
Illegal trafficking in wild plants is a significant dimension of environmental crime that has garnered relatively limited attention compared to wildlife poaching and trafficking of fauna. The global demand for ornamental plants, rare succulents, timber, and medicinal herbs has resulted in the overexploitation and unsustainable harvesting of countless species, pushing many toward extinction. Despite its ecological, economic, and cultural ramifications, the legal and judicial responses to this form of biopiracy remain fragmented and insufficient. This research explores how international legal instruments and judicial pronouncements have addressed the illegal trade of wild plants, while also identifying existing challenges and recommending pathways for more effective regulation and enforcement.
UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE AND IMPACT OF ILLEGAL WILD PLANT TRADE
The illegal trade in wild flora encompasses the unauthorized collection, transportation, and commercialization of plant species protected under national or international law. High-value timber species such as Dalbergia (rosewood), aromatic plants like agarwood (Aquilaria spp.), and rare orchids are among the most frequently trafficked plants. These species are often harvested from biodiversity-rich but poorly monitored regions, including tropical forests in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The consequences of such trade are far-reaching. Ecologically, it contributes to habitat degradation, disrupts local ecosystems, and leads to the genetic erosion of species. Economically, it results in significant losses to legal markets and deprives states of revenues from regulated harvesting and trade. Moreover, it adversely affects indigenous communities who depend on these plants for their traditional livelihoods and cultural practices. The trade often operates through complex international networks, involving false documentation, smuggling routes, and sometimes collusion with corrupt officials, making enforcement exceedingly difficult.
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ADDRESSING ILLEGAL WILD PLANT TRADE
The most significant international legal instrument governing the trade in endangered plants is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), adopted in 1973. CITES regulates trade in species listed in three Appendices based on the degree of threat they face. Appendix I prohibits commercial trade in species threatened with extinction; Appendix II allows controlled trade under permit systems; and Appendix III involves species protected in at least one country. Notably, numerous plant species such as Panax quinquefolius (American ginseng), Hoodia spp., and various orchids and cacti are listed under CITES.
Another important instrument is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was adopted in 1992. Unlike CITES, the CBD does not directly regulate trade but emphasizes the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Article 8(j) of the CBD is particularly relevant, as it underscores the importance of respecting traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous communities regarding biological resources. The Nagoya Protocol (2010) under the CBD further introduces binding rules on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) mechanisms for genetic resources, which include wild plants used for medicinal or commercial purposes.
Additionally, the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) provides a broader framework to address organized criminal networks involved in environmental crimes, including plant trafficking. Although it is not specifically tailored to biodiversity issues, it allows states to prosecute trafficking when linked to corruption, money laundering, or document fraud.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND THE ROLE OF COURTS
While international treaties form the backbone of the legal framework, enforcement and interpretation depend largely on domestic courts. Judicial institutions across jurisdictions have gradually begun to confront the legal implications of illegal plant trade through environmental litigation.
One of the most significant judicial interventions comes from the Supreme Court of India in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India7. Though primarily concerned with forest conservation, the Court’s expansive interpretation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 led to a nationwide ban on tree felling in non-forest areas without government approval. This case laid the groundwork for judicial recognition of ecological balance as a constitutional right, indirectly protecting plant biodiversity.
In the United States, the Lacey Act (amended 2008) prohibits the import, export, transport, or sale of plants and plant products taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. The landmark case United States v. Bengis. While dealing with illegal fish exports from South Africa, affirmed the applicability of U.S. laws to environmental crimes committed abroad. This principle has since been extended to cases involving illegally sourced timber and medicinal plants, reinforcing the reach of domestic courts in prosecuting transnational plant crimes.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has similarly underscored member states’ obligations to implement CITES provisions. In Commission v. Luxembourg (Case C-154/02). The Court found Luxembourg in breach of EU obligations for failing to adequately incorporate CITES into national law, including measures for protecting endangered plant species. This judgment reinforced the legal mandate for strict implementation of international conservation norms within the EU.
In China, environmental courts have recently begun prosecuting cases involving endangered medicinal plants such as Dendrobium and Panax ginseng. Following the integration of environmental protection principles into China’s Civil Code in 2021, local courts have imposed fines and imprisonment in notable plant trafficking cases, reflecting a more assertive legal posture.
CHALLENGES IN ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
Despite these positive developments, multiple challenges continue to obstruct the effective enforcement of legal instruments addressing wild plant trafficking. First, identifying plant species—especially in processed form—requires specialized botanical expertise, which is often lacking at border posts and among enforcement personnel. Second, the penalties for illegal plant trade remain low in many jurisdictions, failing to serve as a sufficient deterrent, particularly for high-value species.
A further issue is the insufficient awareness among legal professionals, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary about the scale and seriousness of illegal plant trade. Unlike charismatic megafauna, plants do not evoke public sympathy or media attention, resulting in weaker political will and resource allocation for enforcement. Additionally, corruption and lack of inter-agency coordination often enable traffickers to operate with impunity.
Judicial reluctance to impose severe punishments in environmental cases involving flora, as compared to those involving fauna, also hinders deterrence. Many courts prioritize property rights and economic interests over ecological considerations, which reflects a need for greater judicial education and capacity building in biodiversity law.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To strengthen the legal and judicial response to illegal wild plant trade, several reforms are essential. Firstly, countries must ensure full compliance with CITES and CBD obligations through comprehensive national legislation. Protected species lists should be regularly updated based on international assessments, and permit issuance must be transparent and traceable.
Secondly, capacity building for enforcement authorities, customs officials, and the judiciary is critical. Workshops, legal training modules, and partnerships with botanical institutions can aid in species identification and legal interpretation. The use of modern technologies such as DNA barcoding, forensic botany, and satellite monitoring should be institutionalized to improve detection and evidence collection.
Thirdly, judicial academies should include environmental law and biodiversity conservation in their curricula to sensitize judges and magistrates to the ecological and legal importance of wild plant conservation. Strategic public interest litigation can also be encouraged to push for policy reform and judicial intervention.
Lastly, the role of indigenous and local communities must be recognized. Granting legal rights to communities over traditional knowledge and plant use, along with ensuring equitable benefit-sharing, can transform them into partners in conservation rather than adversaries of the law.
CONCLUSION
Illegal trade in wild plants is an emerging frontier of environmental crime that demands urgent legal and judicial attention. While international frameworks like CITES and CBD provide the necessary legal infrastructure, enforcement remains weak and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Courts are increasingly called upon to uphold biodiversity protections, and their role in interpreting and enforcing environmental laws is vital. To preserve the planet’s botanical heritage, it is imperative that legal systems—international and domestic—work in tandem with science, community participation, and judicial commitment. The survival of thousands of plant species and the ecosystems they sustain may depend on such a holistic approach.
REFERENCES
- Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j), 1992.
- INTERPOL and UNEP, The Rise of Environmental Crime (2016).
- CITES, Articles II & III, 1973.
- CBD, Article 8(j), 1992.
- Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits, 2010.
- United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2000.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
- United States v. Bengis, 332 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003).
- Commission of the European Communities v. Luxembourg, Case C-154/02, [2005] ECR I-4803.
- Liu, J., “Environmental Litigation in China: From ‘Green Courts’ to Civil Code,” China Environment Journal, Vol. 28, 2022.
- TRAFFIC, Wild at Home: The Global Demand for Wild Plants in the Home and Garden (2019).
