1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. Thank you for your attention!
Project team and contacts
Thank you for your attention!
Sandra Berman and Ulrike Jana
BIO Intelligence Service
Euronatur