Brussels, Centre Borschette Ornis Committee Meeting of 14th October 2011 Brussels, Centre Borschette Stocktaking of the main problems related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the European Union and review of the enforcement mechanisms of Member States’ legislation implementing the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)

Context and aim of the study June 2011 1st questionnaire to have an overview of the MS opinion Many species with unfavourable population status are impacted by illegal killing, trapping and trade The main issues identified in the EU are poisoning, illegal trapping, illegal bird trade, and killing for control of predators First report Aims of the study Obtain a better understanding of the issue of illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds in the EU Gather Member State’s opinion concerning the importance of these illegal practices Provide an assessment of the implementation and enforcement of the Birds Directive in MS Identify ways in which the EC could support the MS in enforcing the BD August 2011 2nd questionnaire to assess implementation and enforcement of BD 31 October 2011 Final report

Importance of the illegal killing of birds in the EU How is the issue of illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds considered in each MS? - Based on qualitative and expert knowledge available from the MS authorities, - 3 MS did not answer (Finland, Latvia and Malta). No importance: Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia Illegal activities reported are mainly : killing of protected species, shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds (out of 11 possible answers) Significant importance: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and UK Drivers are mainly : intentional poisoning, trapping/capturing for personal use or for live sale, accidental poisoning (out of 9 possible answers)

Structure of the country profile Main issues related to illegal birds killing Point of view of the government (first questionnaire), National report to the Bern Convention Secretariat, Point of view of the NGO BirdLife (2011 report on the issue) Implementation of the Bird Directive Presentation of the main texts implementing articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the BD. Enforcement actions How is the BD concretely enforced? Is there a special unit devoted to wildlife protection? Importance of awareness-raising (by the government as well as by NGOs) Good practices and main barriers Are there good practices in the MS that could be used elsewhere in the EU? What are the main barriers identified during the survey? The country profiles have been sent for proofreading to the members of the Ornis Committee NB: Do not hesitate to contact us if you have not yet received your country profile, comments are welcome until the end of the month (31/10)

Findings of the study (1/2) A rather good implementation of the Birds directive The main legal texts that implement the BD are: - texts on nature conservation and species protection, - texts on hunting, - texts on criminal and penal sanctions A poor enforcement in many MS Seems to be due to a number of combined factors: - illegal activities are difficult to identify, - difficulties to catch and sanction the offenders - drivers of illegal killing, trapping and trade not enough targeted For the poor enforcement (details): Illegal activities are difficult to identify as they mainly occur in open, wide areas, often not easily accessible In many cases it is difficult to catch the offenders, prove their responsibility and even when this is done, to obtain that they are prosecuted and sanctioned. The drivers of illegal killing, trapping and trade must be targeted, including politicians that make statements mixing traditional and illegal activities, customers (including consumers of birds, taxidermists, collectors), the wider public, including tourists Existence of specialised field units in some MS Only 10 EU countries have such special unit devoted to wildlife crime Often understaffed and/or lacking sufficient financial resources France, Italy and Greece stand out with more than 300 people in environmental special units, but with many responsibilities

Findings of the study (2/2) Lack of monitoring data, and of data considered robust by all stakeholders Only few databases recording illegal activities were identified during the project Difficult to obtain an objective data basis for discussion between the stakeholders concerned Databases sometimes managed by the NGO → difficulties of access for the governments Need for further awareness and prioritisation of wildlife crimes by judges and prosecutors Actual databases recording illegal activities were identified for the Wallonia region in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France and Slovakia, even though monitoring was reported to occur in more countries This raises two kinds of issues. First, the government cannot always easily access the databases. In addition, these data are regularly disputed by opposing parties Need ascertain that the offenders are punished once they have been caught Judges and prosecutors are not sufficiently aware of the importance of the issue of illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds Awareness-raising or even training and specialisation of prosecutors and judges may be implemented

Recommendations (1/2) Enforcement, awareness-raising and resources At national level Enforcement, awareness-raising and resources At EU level Support MS in enforcing the BD - guidance on interpretation, dissemination of best practices, training, funding - higher priority given to the issue Awareness-raising to act on drivers and enforcement - general public (knowledge, potential drivers), - stakeholders (education, incentives, alternatives) - enforcement authorities (EU training of judges, best practices, initiatives such as IMPEL, involve EUROPOL, etc.) At the national level : Improvement and enforcement of the regulation Human, financial and material resources for enforcement

Recommendations (2/2) Differentiate issues: At EU level Differentiate issues: - Different drivers for different bird species, but similar issues (e.g. poisoning) - Levels of details for understanding, reporting and acting - Bird trade: learn from experiences of CITES (certificate, specialist group) - Understanding of the problem (more data, more precise data, common data) - Derogations are legally implemented in the EU but may reduce the effectiveness of enforcement, Actions that may be implemented in collaboration with conservation NGOs and hunters NGOS: - joint lobbying - organise an EU-wide awareness programme to stop illegal poisoning and use of unselective means of killing - data collection as the pattern and practices of illegal trade is very similar between CITES and non-CITES species, discussion about this problem within EU CITES could be useful Joint lobbying proved to be successful in Germany and could be implemented in other MS.

Thank you for your attention! Project team and contacts Thank you for your attention! Sandra Berman and Ulrike Jana BIO Intelligence Service sandra.berman@biois.com ulrike.jana@biois.com +33 1 53 90 11 80 Euronatur