Illegal killing, trapping and trade survey among EU BirdLife Partners Rastislav Rybanic, BirdLife International Conservation Sustainable hunting Birds Directive Enforcement

Content  Sustainable Hunting Initiative  BirdLife International and FACE Agreement  Data collection and analysis  Results of illegal activities survey among BirdLife Partner organisations  Results  Recommendations  Points to discuss and next steps

Sustainable Hunting Initiative (2001)  Point 7. Encourage trainings and education campaigns for hunters as well as initiatives to control illegal hunting activities:  ”Illegal activities (shooting protected species, use of illegal trapping devices, shooting out of season or in prohibited areas, illegal use of poisons) are against the ‘principle of wise use’, a key element of the Birds Directive and are not in accordance with the principle of conservation through sustainable use.“  ”Furthermore, the illegal actions of a small number of hunters can also bring the whole activity of hunting into serious disrepute. As hunters are the most effective custodians of the hunted areas it is in their long term interests to increasingly oppose such activities and to be seen to do so.“

BirdLife – FACE Agreement (2004)  Point 8 - Both organisations call upon the competent authorities to take appropriate initiatives to ensure the respect of all bird conservation legislation, in particular through proper enforcement but also by education and awareness raising initiatives. They offer their assistance in this respect.  BirdLife and FACE work jointly on addressing illegal activities against birds  Joint work started with collecting overview information though BirdLife Partner organisations

 Data collected among 27 BirdLife Partners in All EU Member States  Questionnaire developed with FACE listing different types of illegal activities  For the most important types of illegal activities respondents were asked to rate:  Scale on national level  Conservation impact  Quality of evidence  Medium and long term trend - Data collection and analysis (1) Analysed together to asses the importance Trends assessed to complete the picture

 Scale of illegal activities:  From local / rare (1) to widespread / abundant (5)  Conservation impact on the species / populations concerned:  From very low (1) to very high (5)  Quality of evidence about the activities:  From poor quality based on anecdotal evidence (1) to good quality based on official data (5) Scale, conservation impact scores were combined and weighted by quality of evidence to get information about relative importance of an activity in a country  Long (20 years) and Medium term trend (10 years):  From activity decreased a lot (1) to activity increased a lot (5)  Species involved in this activity:  Respondents were asked to list the species involved Data collection and analysis (2)

 Inherently there is some overlap between the illegal activities categories  As there is different level of data gathering involvement of BirdLife organisations - the results might be biased towards those where appropriate capacity is devoted to data collection and problem analysis ( e.g. UK situation)  The scale and conservation impact of illegal activities are difficult to compare between different countries (e.g. France vs. Cyprus)  The assessment of the situation provided by BirdLife organisations clearly reflects their level of involvement in these issues Limitations of the survey

Main Results  26 BirdLife Partners participated in the survey  242 data lines about reported illegal activities from all respondents gathered ( this dataset is further analysed )  Only in one Member State reported no real problems with illegal activities (Luxembourg)  Information for Belgium covers only Flanders

Results – share of reported illegal activities 54% killing/taking protected species and using illegal methods

Results – Share of reported types of illegal activities In more detailed breakdown by activity types, patterns are less clear

Results – importance, impact and scale of activities

Results - scale of illegal activities in some countries

Conservation impact

Quality of evidence EU Average

Long term trend of illegal activities Average EU trend stable

Mid term trend of illegal activities Average EU trend - moderate increse

Main species targeted by illegal activities  Illegal shooting for hunting/sport purposes:  Mainly waterfowl (incl. red listed ones like Red- breasted Goose)  Persecution of predators:  Birds of prey (incl. red listed ones as Peregrine, Saker Falcon or Imperial Eagle), Cormorants, Herons, Pelicans  Poisoning: Mainly birds of prey, Vultures  Trapping for keeping or consumption: Passerines – finches, warblers, thrushes, falcons etc.

Targeted species visualised by

Next steps under BirdLife - FACE agreement  BirdLife will supply this information to FACE (end June 2010)  FACE will share and discuss with their Members - how they can address these issues in respective countries (autumn 2010)  Cooperation with authorities and other stakeholders on national level would be helpful if feasible

Priority areas to address  Illegal activities against birds still exist within the EU and the information suggest that different types of problem persists  Following areas appears to be the most problematic :  Use of poisons  Killing for predator control  Illegal traps, nets, lime stick etc.  Killing / taking in areas where it is forbidden  Killing for recreation / sport / hunting  Illegal trade  Killing for consumption  Awareness and proper enforcement of existing laws needs to be addressed depending on different situations in Member States

Recommendations  As this problem is complex, the situation needs to be assessed on national level in each Member State together with main stakeholders to define the best way how to proceed  All possible stakeholders groups should be involved in tackling these problems – not only hunters and conservationists (e.g. taxidermists, bird fanciers, farmers, fisherman...)  Better awareness of various groups would enable hunting organisations and authorities to take appropriate action  All enforcement forces on national level including Police forces and courts need to be fully involved in tackling these problems on national level  Install better systems for collection of evidence (e.g. dedicated databases/options to filter illegal activities within existing databases)  Hunting organisations and national authorities needs to lead in addressing these problem

Points to discuss  What is the view of this situation in particular Member States?  Are there any positive examples to be shared among the Member States?  What should be the role of the Commission and main stakeholders like BirdLife and FACE in tackling these problems?

Thank you for your attention ! Conservation Sustainable hunting Birds Directive Enforcement