Environmental legislation in Mexico can be understood from two jurisdictions: criminal and administrative (in other countries it is considered a civil jurisdiction). In the criminal jurisdiction are the crimes contained in the Penal Codes (Federal, in charge of the federal administration and State in charge of each state administration) and violations to these codes are considered crimes and include a punishment (such as imprisonment, reparation of environmental damages and fines) and are judicialized, which means that governmental attention is attended to as criminal acts, due to their social and environmental consequences.

In the administrative jurisdiction are those laws and regulations that regulate the use of natural resources and violations to the laws and regulations are considered administrative offences and are punishable by fines and reparation of social and environmental damage and do not include imprisonment, except in cases where an environmental crime is committed with an administrative offence.

In addition, Mexico is party to various international environmental agreements and treaties (e.g. CITES, Convention on Biological Diversity), which, together with its own legal and institutional system, protect and preserve the environment.

Cases of wildlife trafficking is considered a federal crime punishable under Article 420 bis IV of the Federal Criminal Code (Código Penal Federal, 2024) and defined as: whoever illicitly captures, possesses, transports, collects, importing into or exporting from the country, any specimen, its products or derivatives and other genetic resources, of a species of wild flora or fauna, terrestrial or aquatic, considered endemic, threatened, in danger of extinction, subject to special protection, or regulated by any international treaty to which Mexico is party. In addition, wildlife trafficking is punishable by one to nine years’ imprisonment plus a financial fine, and the police as first responders can attend to cases of wildlife trafficking in the verification of documentation and for the precautionary confiscation of specimens or products suspected of illegality, and report to the Prosecutor’s Office and PROFEPA for specialized attention.

The environmental regulatory framework, in addition to the Penal Codes, also includes two important laws: the General Law on Ecological Equilibrium (Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico) (LGEEPA, 2024) and the General Law on Wildlife (Ley General de Vida Silvestre) (LGVS, 2021). Regarding wildlife trafficking, these two laws establish the legal and administrative criteria for keeping specimens of fauna and flora in captivity and under express authorization (provided they have been legally acquired), as well as preventive activities for wildlife trafficking such as surveillance, monitoring, inspection, the development of alternative productive activities for rural communities and environmental education.

The environmental legal framework is further reinforced by other official instruments such as the National First Responders Protocol (Protocolo Nacional de Actuación de Primeros Respondientes, 2017) and the National Code for Criminal Procedures (articles 132 and 238, Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales, 2024), which establish the faculties and procedures to be followed by public government officials in prosecuting crimes in Mexico, including wildlife trafficking.

Identifying whether conduct is criminal or not is one of the main attributes and responsibilities of the police as first responders. The National First Responders Protocol and the National Code for Criminal Procedures establishes that the police have the obligation to attend to complaints, identify and report possibly criminal conduct to their superior and to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, document through the Homologated Police Report with the support of photographs or video recordings. Subsequently police must deliver the scene and seized or confiscated wildlife or products through the Chain of Custody to the Environmental expert (Forensic Sciences Department). Under indication of the Public Prosecutor’s Office the specimens must be destined to the competent authority (PROFEPA) for their respective management (e.g. to be sent to zoos, Wildlife Conservation and Research Centre or consult them for referral to Wildlife Conservation Management Units, institutions or persons that fulfil the best conditions for the safety and care of wildlife) (Article 120, LGEEPA, 2024) ( Figure 4 ).

The police, as first responders, have the legal authority to investigate the legality of flora and fauna specimens in operations or when attending to complaints, as well as to inform PROFEPA (through Public Prosecutor’s Office) about seizures or confiscations of trafficked flora and fauna. In confiscation, specimens or products may be recovered if legal provenance is demonstrated by the possessor, while confiscation is not possible to return specimens or products, because legal provenance is not proven and therefore it is a crime. In the latter scenario, the specimens are placed in the care of an authorized institution (e.g., zoos, environmental management units, wildlife research centers) (Castro-Salazar et al., 2024), while the products are either stored or destroyed.

One of the primary factors facilitating law enforcement against wildlife trafficking is inter-agency co-operation. When police officers identify cases of wildlife trafficking, they notify the Attorney General’s Office or the State Attorney General’s Office to initiate the criminal investigation, and PROFEPA to secure the specimens (see Figure 4 ).

Although some lack of awareness of their specific responsibilities to deal with wildlife trafficking is evident, inter-institutional cooperation partially compensates for this lack of awareness. The National Code for Criminal Procedures, the National First Responders Protocol, the General Law of Ecological Balance and the General Wildlife Law all promote and encourage collaboration between government agencies and other facilities such as the Wildlife Conservation and Research Centre and Wildlife Conservation Management Units. This is consistent with other studies that establish that collaboration between government institutions, training between institutions and communication can lead to good results in environmental law enforcement (Pink, 2016; Barrett and White, 2017; White and Pink, 2017; Faroque and South, 2022).

As observed in the interviews and depicted in Figure 4 , the police alone are not able to enforce the law against wildlife trafficking –the participation of public security institutions and other governmental entities in environmental issues is necessary. This reflects a strength at the macro level of institutional capacity to consolidate organizational and inter-institutional networks to address social problems (Willems, 2004; Rosas-Huerta, 2008). Strengthening capacities of collaboration between institutions represents the first line of action against wildlife trafficking in Tamaulipas and Mexico.

LGEEPA (2024) establishes that SEMARNAT, as the main environmental authority in Mexico, must provide training and environmental education to public education institutions (schools of all educational levels) and other facilities. However, it does not consider public security institutions, such as the police, despite being first responders at crime scenes and for the attention of complaints.

Citizen collaboration through complaints plays a key role in facilitating the policing of wildlife trafficking in Tamaulipas because it incorporates society in response to environmental crimes and, as documented in other studies, environmental complaints are a source of information and an indicator to develop effective public policies (Salgado and Fidélis, 2011; Zeng et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2021). This is particularly important, as the relationship between citizen participation in denouncing environmental crimes and police reaction has not previously been academically documented in Tamaulipas or Mexico.

The environmental law framework considers different ways to make complaints directly to PROFEPA: 1) by going to the offices, by email, on the website and by phone call (requesting its ratification in writing within three days) (LGVS, 2021; CNPP, 2024; LGEEPA, 2024). Although environmental complaints made directly to PROFEPA belong to the administrative jurisdiction, citizens also report directly to 911 when they identify criminal conduct such as wildlife trafficking, and police officers attend to the complaints to take the necessary steps to enforce the law or to turn the case over to PROFEPA (see Figure 3 ).

In addition, it is necessary to highlight that a greater participation and concern of society for environmental issues is observed, which is evident in the increase of complaints at the national level attended by PROFEPA (see PROFEPA, 2023). The figures on environmental crimes that are judicialized in Mexico are only partially publicly available, as the open access data only show the total number of criminal cases, without specifying the type of crime (wildlife trafficking, deforestation, pollution, etc.), which is particularly problematic for measuring specific environmental crimes at the national or local level (see Castro-Salazar et al., 2023).

The police, as first responders, are one of the primary government officials dealing with complaints, including those related to wildlife trafficking, so effective interaction between the complainant, the 911 service and the police ensures an effective governance and environmental justice (Tomkins, 2005).

Considering the importance of the police as first responders to crime, it should be noted that the factors favoring police intervention against wildlife trafficking are based on the legal authority to enforce environmental law, but also on the participation of society in the prevention of wildlife trafficking through the filing of complaints. Although few cases have been identified by police officers who know the protocol for enforcing environmental law, a first step, in addition to training police officers on their faculties, is to promote citizen collaboration through environmental education.

The main cause of public insecurity in the state of Tamaulipas is organized crime linked to drug trafficking. Criminal groups operating in the region often outgun police forces, hindering effective law enforcement, and due to the weapons equipment of these criminal groups exceeds that of the police forces. This situation stems from the tendency of members of criminal groups to keep exotic animals in captivity in their homes or ranches (farms) as “luxury possessions,” mainly felines (Panthera tigris, P. leo and P. onca). Although this phenomenon has been documented in previous studies in the state (Carpio-Domínguez et al., 2018b; 2022; 2023a, b), how the police respond to cases of wildlife trafficking by criminal groups has not been documented and is a factor that originates in the social context of institutional capacity and influences the policing response to wildlife trafficking (Willems, 2004; Rosas-Huerta, 2008).

The conditions of public insecurity in the state have resulted in the police being unable to enforce the law or initiate a criminal investigation even when the crime is committed in flagrante delicto because the organizational structure of response and coordination of criminal groups in armed confrontations outweighs the daily police patrols that are generally manned by 2 or 4 police officers, two in the cab and two in the truck bed.

This imposition of organized crime on public security institutions has been a historical phenomenon, not only in the state of Tamaulipas, but throughout the country, and it intensified during and after the “war against drugs” in Mexico during the Calderon administration (2006-2012) (Williams, 2010; Buscaglia, 2012; Olinger, 2013; Carpio-Domínguez, 2021). The policy of direct action against drug trafficking was characterized among other things by armed confrontations between state forces (police, Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional [Ministry of National Defense]) and the big drug cartels (e.g. Cartel del Golfo, Cartel del Pacífico, Cartel de Juárez), but also by armed confrontations between the cartels.

This situation led to the fragmentation of the cartels into smaller criminal groups characterized by extreme violence and the diversification of economic activities in addition to drug trafficking, such as kidnapping, extortion, fuel theft, trafficking of migrants, extortion, among others, and which have remained more than eighty criminal groups in the country (Muedano, 2018; Carpio-Domínguez, 2021).

In the 43 municipalities of Tamaulipas, eleven criminal groups operate: the Cártel del Golfo, Los Zetas Vieja Escuela, Cártel del Noreste, Tropa del Infierno, Los Ciclones, Los Escorpiones, Los Metros, Los Panteras, Los Rojos, Operativo Gama 16, Columna Armada Pedro J. Méndez and Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (Infobae, 2023) ( Figure 5 ). These criminal groups are characterized by activities such as extortion, kidnapping, migrant trafficking, and drug sales, and during police operations to confront them, cases of possession of exotic animals from wildlife trafficking have been identified, such as felines (Panthera tigris, Panthera leo and Panthera onca), oryx (Oryx dammah), bears (Ursus americanus), deer (Odocoileus virginianus), spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi), also in conservation risk categories (see Carpio-Domínguez et al., 2018b, 2022; Carpio-Domínguez, 2023a, b).

In the logic of police operations against drug trafficking, little attention is paid to other crimes, such as wildlife trafficking, as it is not categorized by the state as a crime of high social impact and are the main target of police operations, so the real rates of wildlife trafficking in the state are unknown (Carpio-Domínguez et al., 2018b, 2022, 2023).

Public insecurity negatively influences the implementation of environmental legislation in the country. In Tamaulipas, wildlife trafficking is a crime subordinated to the “big social problems” and has not received adequate attention by the police as first responders at the crime scene, not only due to lack of interest and knowledge in identifying environmental crimes, but also due to the forms of direct and structural violence to which the police are exposed and which have been made visible in other studies on police enforcement in Mexico and other Latin American countries (e.g. Malone and Dammert, 2020; Quintero-Cordero, 2020; Cortés-Fuentes et al., 2023; Monroy-Ojeda, 2023).

The context of public insecurity, corruption and working conditions such as the high turnover rate of personnel has caused the police to act in a “practical” manner without generating investigative or intelligence activities, limiting them only to responding to instructions from the command center, which is known as “reactive activities” and which, in turn, is determined by the context of public insecurity in the state, therefore police interactions with organized crime are generally sporadic, numerically disadvantaged and often require support from SEDENA or the Navy.

In Mexico, wildlife trafficking as a federal crime is prosecuted by complaint, so that the police can only act in response to a complaint or when they are involved in special police operations, mainly against drug trafficking. As evidenced in the interviews and as has been reported in other studies in this region (Carpio-Domínguez et al., 2018b; 2022; 2023) wildlife trafficking is identified within anti-drug trafficking operations, while from the interviews conducted, only two police officer has been commissioned to respond to a citizen complaint about wildlife trafficking.

The police face two critical, interdependent limitations: 1) instructions from superiors not to prosecute environmental crimes, such as wildlife trafficking, have greater weight in the decision not to attend to these crimes than the obligations attributed in the National Code for Criminal Procedures (article 221, Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales, 2024) and 2) the lack of knowledge regarding procedures for addressing environmental crimes, both by the police and their superiors.

Although it seems to be a local phenomenon, other studies have reported that in transnational environmental crime, police cooperation and the lack of homologation of environmental legal frameworks represent a challenge for police enforcement (Spapens, 2013). In addition, the police currently perform a variety of functions spanning administrative, regulatory, social welfare, and law enforcement that are variable depending on the context (Tomkins, 2005). When responding to or identifying environmental crime the workload increases, which is consistent with a lack of knowledge and interest in addressing environmental crime.

Corruption also limits the policing of wildlife trafficking, which is related to the widespread public insecurity in the state of Tamaulipas. In Mexico, the levels of perception of corruption are high, according to Transparency International (2023) it is 31/100, which places the country in 126/180th place in corruption; while in the state of Tamaulipas 77.4% of the population considers that there is corruption in government institutions (INEGI, 2023b).

To understand how corruption affects the processes of attention, registration, law enforcement, and accounting of environmental crimes in the state, it is necessary to consider that there are relationships between government officials and different criminal associations, or corrupt practices among government officials. Other studies on wildlife trafficking in the state have shown the interrelation government officials and members of criminal groups (see Carpio-Domínguez et al., 2023; 2023b), as well as bribes to allow the smuggling of wildlife across the country (see Carpio-Domínguez et al., 2022).

The relationships of government officials and members of criminal groups are also subject to processes of adjustment and pact-breaking, which has been reported in other studies in Mexico (Pérez-Velazco, 2013; Valencia-Londoño, 2018). This provides insights into the processes of intimidation of government forces towards members of criminal groups and that, in some cases, it is related to wildlife trafficking.

Relations between security forces or politicians and members of criminal groups determine how the law is enforced also in cases of wildlife trafficking. If the police deal with complaints or are on operations, the targets are usually known, which means that they know whose house, ranch, or farm it is, and as instructions from superiors are given, police actions are carried out.

Corruption not only limits environmental law enforcement, but it also constrains cases of wildlife trafficking from being registered and documented and remaining in unreported figures. According to the UNODC (2020; 2024) corruption is an essential factor in all processes of wildlife trafficking (sourcing, transit and export), however, as observed in this study also in law enforcement. It has been documented that for environmental law enforcement, police officers are the government officials with the highest percentage of corrupt practices (UNODC, 2020) and in environmental crimes, government officials are rarely prosecuted for corruption.

The context of public insecurity in the state of Tamaulipas and in Mexico more broadly has compelled public security institutions to prioritize prevention and reaction against “traditional” crimes, which can be delimited as human-to-human violence. This implies that professionalization, law education, training, and police enforcement are focused on easily identifying crimes and human-to-human violence, and therefore have not been educated or trained to identify other forms of crime such as environmental crimes, this includes human to non-animal violence and/or harms against biodiversity.

Although, in practice, not all police officers are aware of their environmental law enforcement role, the National First Responders Protocol (Protocolo Nacional de Actuación de Primeros Respondientes, 2017) and the National Code for Criminal Procedures (articles 132 and 238, Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales, 2024) authorized them to report and take custody of wildlife specimens or products until they are collected by PROFEPA. The actions of the police are fundamental to detect wildlife trafficking before any other institution, however, it is still a pending issue in police training in Tamaulipas.