EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2016 SWD(2016) 38 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analysis and Evidence in support of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking {COM(2016) 87 final}



COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analysis and evidence in support of the EU Action Plan against

wildlife trafficking Introduction 1. Main features of wildlife trafficking at global and EU level 1.1. Wildlife trafficking at global level: changes in scale and nature 1.2. Wildlife trafficking at global level: key drivers 1.2.1 Rising demand 1.2.2 Poverty and exploitation of rural communities in source countries 1.2.3 Poor governance and corruption 1.3 Wildlife trafficking and the EU 1.3.1 Scale of wildlife trafficking in the EU 1.3.2 Drivers/Facilitators of wildlife trafficking in the EU: sustained demand and

insufficient awareness 2. The impacts of wildlife trafficking 2.1 Impact on biodiversity 2.2 Economic impact of wildlife trafficking 2.3 Impact on governance and the rule of law 2.4 Impact on national and regional security 3. Actions taken at the global and the EU level

3.1 Initiatives at global level 3.2 The framework of action at EU level 4. Challenges under the current approach 4.1 Implementation and Enforcement of existing rules in the EU 4.1.1 An uneven level of implementation and enforcement throughout the EU 4.1.2 Awareness and prioritization 4.1.3 Capacity throughout the enforcement chain 4.1.4 Coordination within the Member States 4.1.5 Capacity to fight organised wildlife crime 4.1.6 Enforcement Cooperation amongst Member States 4.1.7 International Enforcement Cooperation 4.2 Support to anti-wildlife trafficking efforts globally 4.2.1 Scale of EU Support provided to developing countries 4.2.2 Donor coordination 4.2.3 Demand reduction 4.2.4 Anti-Corruption efforts 4.2.4 Diplomatic tools for more effective cooperation with relevant source, transit and market countries and regions 4.2.5 The EU trade policy in support of the fight against wildlife trafficking Annex 1 Annex 2





Introduction Wildlife trafficking is not a new phenomenon, but its scale, nature and impact have changed considerably in recent years. Wildlife trafficking today is not only bringing some iconic species to the brink of extinction, but also hindering sustainable economic development. Moreover, it has strong links with transnational organised crime networks and corruption. In some instances, it also threatens national and regional security. Wildlife trafficking directly undermines EU policies to support sustainable development worldwide, particularly as regards protection for global biodiversity and efforts to strengthen good governance. The European Commission has therefore developed an EU Action Plan against wildlife trafficking to tackle the phenomenon within the EU and strengthen the EU's role in combating it worldwide. The Plan has three priorities: (1) preventing wildlife trafficking and tackling its root causes, (2) making implementation and enforcement of existing rules and the fight against organised wildlife crime more effective, and (3) strengthening the global partnership of source, consumer and transit countries against wildlife trafficking. The fight against cross-border crime in an area of justice and fundamental rights and making the EU a stronger global player feature among the current Commission’s ten political priorities. This document presents data on the scale and nature of wildlife trafficking in the EU and globally, analyses the action taken so far, and explains why further measures are needed at EU and international level. It also shows the links with the measures in the proposed EU Action Plan which seek to tackle the challenges described here.



1. Main features of wildlife trafficking at global and EU level 1.1. Wildlife trafficking at global level: changes in scale and nature Despite comprehensive international rules on the trade in wildlife, wildlife trafficking has reached unprecedented levels in recent years. By nature, the illegal wildlife trade is difficult to quantify; it has been estimated by different sources to represent several billion euros of business annually. Species exploited include corals, reptiles, pangolins, sharks, tigers, great apes, elephants, rhinoceros, turtles, animals used for bush meat, tropical timber or wood used for charcoal, and plants and animals used for medicinal purposes. While the EU Action Plan does not focus on specific species, the data on many lesser-known species are limited. This chapter therefore focuses on rhinoceroses and elephants, among the most emblematic victims of the current crisis. The vast majority of the world's remaining 20,000 rhinos live in South Africa, where poaching has risen significantly in recent years. Over 1200 animals were illegally killed in 2014, by comparison with 13 in 2007 (Figure 1). Poaching for rhinoceroses has also increased recently in Namibia and Zimbabwe. This massive poaching supplies the black market for rhino horn in Asia. Consequently, rhinoceros populations in Africa are now declining again after decades of recovery.

Figure 1. Rhino poaching in South Africa. Source: TRAFFIC The African elephant population is also declining, due to steep increases in poaching. The latest estimates of the total number of African elephants range from 419,000 to 650,000. An estimated 20,000 - 30,000 elephants have been killed illegally every year since 2011. The elephant population has fallen by 60% in Tanzania over the last five years, from 110,000 to under 44,000. During the same period, Mozambique is reported to have lost 48% of its elephants. Forest elephants from Central Africa declined by an estimated 62% between 2002 and 2012, mainly as a result of poaching. The illicit ivory trade has more than doubled since 2007, and is now over three times its size in 1998. Over 40 tonnes of ivory were seized in source, transit and end destination countries in 2013. However, this is just a small proportion of the quantities trafficked. The problem is not confined to rhinos and elephants. The examples below illustrate the scale of trafficking in other species listed in the Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): According to seizure records and arrivals at sanctuaries, wildlife trafficking claimed about 1,800 great apes between 2005 and 2011. Poaching is considered to be among the main reasons why the world's tiger population has fallen from 100,000 a century ago to under 3500 today. An estimated one million pangolins were illegally traded between 2000 and 2014. Over 4000 tonnes of rosewood suspected to have been illegally exported from Madagascar were seized by authorities in various transit and destination countries between November 2013 and April 2014. Trafficking, both in CITES-listed plants and animals and in other natural resources, is of major concern to the EU and the international community. Particular concerns are illegal logging and timber trafficking, and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. These represent serious threats to biodiversity conservation and account for sizeable flows of illegal commodities. Some sources estimate the volume of illegal timber from the nine countries producing the largest amounts of tropical timber at over 80 million m3 in 2013, while global illegal fishing is worth approximately EUR 10 billion per annum. Wildlife trafficking hotspots include central and eastern Africa (especially for ivory, tropical timber, charcoal and pangolins) and southern Africa (especially for rhino horn) as source regions, while south-east Asia and China are major end markets for illegally traded wildlife products. However, wildlife trafficking is a global problem. Regional patterns change constantly and new trade routes emerge frequently. For example, there are significant illegal trade flows of valuable birds and reptiles from central and south America to the United States and the EU, and of rosewood to Asia. Transit routes change according to the relative stringency of checks at major ports and airports, new species appear in the illegal wildlife trade, and new poaching areas are targeted. For example, a spike in demand in south-east Asia has driven massive poaching in Asia and Africa of pangolins, which were not trafficked in the past. In Namibia, elephant and rhino poaching soared in 2015, against a very low level of poaching in the preceding years. The increasing scale of wildlife trafficking is intrinsically linked to the growing involvement of transnational organised crime networks. The prospect of making sizeable profits by smuggling wildlife commodities has attracted new players in this area. It is difficult to obtain reliable data on the prices of illegally traded goods, as trafficking is clandestine. The value of such commodities increases considerably along the supply chain, so poachers earn much less than the dealers selling the smuggled items at the final point of sale. Various estimates are regularly presented by different sources. The resale value of rhino horn is about EUR 40,000/kg (the current price of 1 kg of gold is about EUR 31,000), while raw ivory prices reach EUR 620/kg on the black market, and glass eels are valued at about EUR 1,000/kg. These high profits, coupled with the low risk of detection and the penalties, generally much lower than for trafficking in drugs or firearms, make wildlife trafficking an attractive area for organised criminal groups. Environmental crime (including wildlife trafficking) and other forms of organised crime often occur together, as Interpol states in a recent report. The UN Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has documented the involvement of organised crime networks in wildlife trafficking in particular in its threat assessment reports on organised crime in south-east Asia and east Africa. Organised crime is also a factor in the EU (see 1.3 below and case studies in the Annex). Rhino horns, ivory and rosewood are among the well-documented commodities trafficked by organised transnational criminal groups. One clear indication is the rising number of large-scale ivory seizures. Setting up efficient systems to procure and trade so much ivory illicitly typically requires finance, planning, organisation and intelligence, investment in secure facilities for storage and staging purposes, high levels of collusion and corruption, and the ability to effectively and covertly exploit trading links and networks between source countries in Africa and end-use markets in Asia. Organised gangs, notably those with links to major end-use ivory markets, have now developed the ability to ship large consignments of raw and processed ivory directly to key Asian markets. The structure of wildlife trafficking groups is also typical of organised crime networks, with different levels of responsibility, depending on the function of group members (frontline poachers, middle men in the countries of origin who organise poaching logistics and transport to exit points, 'kingpins' responsible for the overall network, and, in some cases, 'mules', who transport ivory or rhino horns across borders). The CITES Secretariat drew attention to the involvement of organised crime networks in rhinoceros poaching and trafficking in its report for the 16th Conference of Parties in March 2013. This states that 'illegal trade in rhinoceros horn continues to be one of the most structured criminal activities currently faced by CITES. There are clear indications that organized crime groups are involved in rhinoceros poaching and illegal rhinoceros horn trade. These groups operate in range States as well as Europe, where thefts of rhinoceros horns from museums, auction houses, antique shops and taxidermists have occurred. Seizures have also been made in Australia, Hong Kong SAR and the Philippines. In the United States of America, seven people were arrested on charges of illegal trafficking rhinoceros horn in February 2012. Illegal rhinoceros horn trade has therefore become a major problem and has an impact on several continents. Increased international cooperation and a well-coordinated law enforcement response are required to address this threat effectively'.

An increasingly important new dimension of wildlife trafficking is the use of the internet to facilitate illegal transactions (see Box 1). Box 1 – Wildlife trafficking and the internet The internet has become an important tool facilitating the trade in wildlife, both legal and illegal. Research by TRAFFIC in 2012 in China revealed that 30 000 - 50 000 advertisements for wildlife products from five species - elephant ivory, rhino horn, tiger bone, hawksbill shells and pangolin scales – could be found on 125 websites. Again, in 2012, ten EU countries monitored their national auction sites for a fortnight to identify advertisements of ivory items. According to an Interpol report, investigators discovered 660 adverts on 61 auction sites, advertising an estimated total volume of 4500 kg of ivory at an estimated total value of EUR 1 450 000. This monitoring resulted in six national and three international investigations into ivory items imported from abroad or described as new. A 2014 International Fund for Animal Welfare report based on a six-week investigation found a total of 33 006 endangered wildlife and wildlife products for sale. They were found on 280 websites, in 9482 advertisements, in 16 countries including six EU countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and the UK). While it was impossible to determine the exact number of illegal and legal advertisements, more than 1000 cases were submitted to enforcement authorities for further investigation. A recent issue is the shift of wildlife traders advertising the sale of wildlife and wildlife products from websites, where products are freely available to the public, to restricted specialised online platforms and private social media forums. These private forums facilitate instant private communication between sellers and buyers and the private exchange of goods. TRAFFIC has recently documented how dealers using 58 active accounts on WeChat (China’s most popular social media messaging service) were responsible for posting 10 650 advertisements, including 57 479 photos and 580 video clips, for illegal ivory products over a 13-week period. The number of illegal ivory advertisements plunged by 45% during the survey period in China, following government enforcement action and concerted efforts by WeChat to clamp down on unethical and illegal activities online. Although this had an immediate deterrent effect and curbed the illegal wildlife trade on this particular online platform for several weeks, illegal wildlife traders subsequently continued to abuse these platforms by setting up new accounts to avoid detection. This demonstrates the adaptability of wildlife criminals and the need for the private sector and enforcement authorities to remain constantly vigilant. Internet sales are typically completed by parcel/post-delivery. Interpol reported (in 2013) that between 2007 and 2011, mail parcels accounted for 22 per cent of illegally traded wildlife and wildlife products seized in the EU. In 2014 alone, over 60 000 tablets containing CITES Appendix II Cape Aloe (Aloe ferox) were seized in multiple parcels destined for France, 152 carvings in African elephant ivory (Loxodonta africana) were seized from postal parcels in transit in Germany, and 170 specimens of radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiata, Appendix I) were discovered in parcels in transit in France. These illegal shipments are likely to have been ordered online. This shows the widespread use of the internet for illegal wildlife trade transactions, which affect the EU as both a consumer and a transit region. While the 2013 Europol Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA) recognises that 'endangered fauna and flora … are … traded over the internet', as are other commodities, Europol’s Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) has not examined wildlife crime closely. Most EU countries have acknowledged the threat posed by the online wildlife trade. For example, the Czech Republic’s national legislation covers online trading and is specifically addressing the online wildlife trade, particularly that a “CITES-obligatory document” must be displayed as part of the sale of any CITES listed specimens sold via the Internet, and the UK has seen several convictions related to illegal wildlife trade on the internet. A recent example is a prosecution for the illegal sale and offering for sale of jewellery containing tiger teeth and claws, which the person concerned was shipping around the globe. In the UK, a man who illegally sold imported primate body parts - including four monkey heads - online and possessed images of bestiality has been sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment suspended for two years in January 2016. The UK authorities are also aware of illegal trade in other wildlife, such as raptors and tortoises. However, there are insufficient indications from Member States that national competent authorities receive adequate training and –where necessary– assistance by specialised cybercrime units to systematically investigate/study wildlife crime on the internet. 1.2. Wildlife trafficking at global level: key drivers 1.2.1 Rising demand The sharp rise in global demand for wildlife products is a key factor explaining the recent boom in wildlife trafficking. This surge in demand, largely from east and south-east Asian markets, is particularly damaging for products from endangered species, such as elephant ivory, rhinoceros horn, tiger bones and skins, luxury woods, reptile skins and species used in traditional medicines. The sustained economic growth that has occurred in parts of Asia, particularly China, has significantly boosted people’s disposable income and hence their ability to purchase luxury and desirable items. The result is increased consumption of rare wildlife products, now fashionable in sections of the newly wealthy middle and upper classes. China has become the world's largest destination market for ivory, according to the data on large-scale seizures of ivory between 2012 and 2013. Data from the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) also confirm that China’s involvement in this illegal trade rose from 3% in 1996 to 40% in 2011. According to analysis conducted by the MIKE Programme, trends in consumer spending in China are strongly correlated with the Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants (PIKE). Higher consumer demand in China correlates with a steady rise in the wholesale price paid by carvers and ivory processors for illegal raw ivory. This rose from approximately USD 150 to USD 350 per kg between 2002 and 2004, reaching about USD 825 per kg in 2010. There have also been changes in consumer attitudes and product preferences. Consumption is now shifting from products such as more traditional medicines to new products including tiger bone wine and rhino horn hangover cures. This suggests that consumers are increasingly motivated by social status and speculation, for instance, rather than tradition. The particular rise in demand from Vietnam coincides with and reflects South African poaching figures. South Africa’s data on applications to hunt rhino and exports of hunting trophies point to Vietnam as the main country involved, highlighting the demand. South African seizure data also implicates the Vietnamese market: of 43 documented arrests of Asian nationals for rhino crimes in South Africa, 24 were Vietnamese (56%), 13 were Chinese (28%), with the remainder from Thailand and Malaysia and with Maputo in Mozambique emerging as a hub for rhino horns in transit out of Africa to Vietnam. Law enforcement data in the USA also overwhelmingly implicate Vietnam as the primary destination for rhino horns from North America. Vietnam also appears to be the only country where rhino horn paraphernalia (bowls with serrated surfaces for grinding) to facilitate home medication are widely available and where fake rhino horns are commonly found in the marketplace. Offering rhino horns for sale is not a criminal offence under Vietnam's wildlife trade law.

A stronger focus on demand reduction measures and behavioural change is therefore an essential part of the fight against wildlife trafficking, and such measures can be successful as shown below for products like shark fin (see 4.1.3). 1.2.2 Poverty and exploitation of rural communities in source countries (linked to actions 4 and 5) The role of poverty in driving poaching in source countries has been widely acknowledged. Poaching can be very lucrative, and it thrives where rural communities have few alternative sources of income. This applies particularly where communities in or close to wildlife-rich areas do not benefit from wildlife conservation and management programmes. The situation is abused by criminal networks that hire frontline poachers or villagers from such communities to assist poachers, in exchange for far more cash than they could earn in any other way. The report from a symposium held in 2015 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) presents several case studies supporting the view that reasons for poaching include the lack of alternative livelihoods. The prospect of increased income from illegal wildlife trafficking activities often far outweighs the fear of arrest and imprisonment, driving some locals to become involved in illicit activities. However, those benefiting from the illegal trade are often just a few individuals, not whole communities (see Box 2). Box 2 – Poverty as a driver for elephant poaching The MIKE programme has statistically evaluated relationships between the Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants (PIKE) levels and a wide range of ecological, biophysical and socioeconomic factors at the site, national and global levels. MIKE data analysis has found that 'three factors consistently emerge as very strong predictors of poaching levels and trends: poverty at the site level, governance at the national level and demand for illegal ivory at the global level'. Research also suggests that human infant mortality in and around MIKE sites, which has been interpreted as a proxy for poverty at the site level, was the single strongest site-level correlate of PIKE, with sites suffering from higher levels of poverty experiencing higher levels of elephant poaching. This implies that there may be a greater incentive to facilitate or participate in the illegal killing of elephants in areas where human livelihoods are insecure. CITES CoP16 Document 53.1 on MIKE states that 'both livestock density and crop occurrence are negatively correlated with PIKE, meaning that poaching levels decrease as livestock or crop density increase.' Relationships between poverty, food security and PIKE highlight a close linkage between the well-being of local communities and the health of elephant populations'. The above symposium report also provides positive examples of community involvement in combating the illegal wildlife trade. Namibia provides an excellent example of communities benefiting directly from wildlife and being involved in tackling wildlife trafficking. In 1996, the government amended the law, enabling communities to have ownership rights over wildlife through community conservancies. The government sets quotas for wildlife use for consumption purposes (e.g. hunting), and all revenues from this and other forms of tourism go to the communities. This has resulted in growing wildlife numbers and significant job creation - including jobs for 500 community game guards. It has also generated a large amount of income, mainly from tourism (e.g. 13m Namibian dollars - about USD 1m - towards schools, healthcare, roads, training and other community needs). Another example from the symposium is the Ruvuma Elephant Project in Tanzania, covering two million hectares, which includes village and farm land, forest and game reserves, and community-based Wildlife Management Areas. It operates in an area where the poaching challenge has been significant. 'Game scouts recruited from the local villages are trained to work alongside government rangers, and they receive performance-related rewards. Local villagers also inform law enforcement efforts, reporting poaching and other suspicious activities to rangers… The project requires good relationships and trust, so it has reciprocally taken on issues of concern to the local communities, particularly conflicts between humans and elephants. The net effect has been a dramatic reduction in poaching while also helping villagers protect their crops'. Involving rural communities in conservation and supporting the development of sustainable alternative livelihoods is thus crucial for effective donor support against wildlife trafficking (see below 4.2). 1.2.3 Poor governance and corruption Poaching and wildlife trafficking have been particularly prevalent in countries with weak governance structure and high levels of corruption. Weak governance means the official authorities lack the resources or will to exercise proper control over the illegal wildlife product trafficking chain as a whole, especially: -in source countries, (i) on the sites where poaching takes place, when the products are being shipped within the country, and at export and exit points, such as ports and airports – and (ii) on the issuing and checking of documents designed to ensure that products are of legal origin; -in transit countries, at cross-border points, especially ports and airports, to inspect products and documentation; -in end-destination countries, at entry points, during internal transport and where products are sold on the market. National legislation is often inadequate and the judiciary inadequately equipped to properly deal with the perpetrators of wildlife crime offences. Weak governance structures are particularly ill-prepared to combat organised crime. Where there is no awareness or will to take political action, wildlife trafficking is not a priority (or even an issue) in the work programme of the police and governmental and inter-governmental bodies responsible for customs checks, organised crime or corruption. This is the case in a number of developing countries affected by wildlife trafficking, where the environment departments in charge of wildlife conservation have found themselves on the front line against criminal gangs involved in wildlife trafficking. Without cooperation by proper law enforcement agencies (police and customs in particular), environmental agencies have very limited means to address the complex web of criminal activities supporting wildlife trafficking. Analysis under the MIKE programme shows that, at national level, the factor most strongly correlated with the proportion of illegally killed elephants is governance, as measured by Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). High poaching levels are more prevalent in countries where governance is weaker, and vice versa. This is likely to be a causal relationship, with poor governance facilitating the illegal killing of elephants and movement of illegal ivory, be it through ineffective law enforcement or active aiding and abetting by unscrupulous officials. This situation is compounded by corruption, viewed as one of the biggest facilitators of the illegal wildlife trade. A number of wildlife species are high-value items targeted by organised crime groups, and this makes the officers responsible for regulating trade in specimens of these species potentially vulnerable to corruption. Corruption can take place at every stage in the trade chain – from poaching, illegal logging and illegal fishing, the transport of illegally poached or harvested goods, processing and export, to issuing, inspecting and accepting documentation (such as CITES export and import permits), to the sale of illegal wildlife products and the laundering of proceeds. Corruption hampers attempts to apprehend and prosecute those involved in wildlife crime, for example, through the bribing or coercion of investigators, police, prosecutors or judges. This is particularly true for those involved in the upper echelons of these organised criminal networks. As a result, most arrests and prosecutions involve the 'foot soldiers' in the lower levels of these wildlife crime syndicates, with few arrests involving individuals further up in the structure.

The examples below illustrate the problem: A 2012 report by TRAFFIC attributed responsibility for the surge in rhino poaching in South Africa largely to corruption among wildlife wardens, professional hunters and other game industry professionals, including game ranch owners, vets, pilots and game capture operators. In 2015, a record seizure of 65 rhino horns in Mozambique was quickly followed by the theft of 12 of them from a strong-room in Maputo Province's police headquarters, reflecting the country's poor law enforcement record and fuelling suspicion of complicity by some authorities. A report by the Environmental Investigation Agency from 2015 highlights corruption and the authorities' lack of engagement and capacity as a major factor in Laos' growing importance as a source and transit country for illegal wildlife products. 2015 reports by the Environmental Investigation Agency and Global Witness stress the role of corruption in large-scale illegal logging and the trade in protected timber species in and between Cambodia, Myanmar and China. In September 2015, INTERPOL confirmed that the former wildlife director and head of the CITES Management Authority of Guinea was arrested for his suspected role in corrupt and fraudulent actions in issuing CITES export permits, notably for the export of highly endangered great apes. Several factors contribute to a climate in which corruption is likely to flourish, particularly in relation to wildlife crime. These include lack of transparency and lack of accountability mechanisms; lack of effective deterrents; legislation and regulations that are complex, ambiguous, confusing or contradictory; conflicts of interest; lack of appropriate awareness education and training; low or irregular pay; and the perception that certain corrupt forms of behaviour are 'victimless' crimes or have no serious consequences. 1.3 Wildlife trafficking and the EU The EU is a market, transit and source region for wildlife trafficking. As Europol has pointed out in its 2013 Threat Assessment on Environmental Crime and in its 2013 Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA), organised wildlife crime exists in the EU, as elsewhere. Europol identifies environmental crime (including wildlife trafficking) as an 'emerging crime' in the EU and describes 'trafficking in endangered species' as 'a niche market attracting highly specialised Organised Criminal Groups'. The case of the 'pseudo-hunters' (see Annex, case study 4) illustrates the presence of organised wildlife criminal networks using the EU as a transit point for rhinoceros horns. Further evidence is provided by case study 3, in which a Belgian court convicted four people for smuggling birds illegally and on a large scale across various EU countries. 1.3.1 Scale of wildlife trafficking in the EU (linked in particular to action 2, 3, 9) EU as an end market Although most wildlife products imported into the EU are of legal origin, the EU is a major end market for illegal wildlife products imported from third countries as well. The EU's significance as a market for illegal wildlife products is shown by the reports of large seizures at EU borders between 2011 and 2014 submitted by EU countries to the European Commission. Although not all Member States provided complete information for the whole period, the data available is wide-ranging and up-to-date. The main commodities exported illegally to the EU between 2011 and 2014 include (see also figure 2): - medicinal products derived from plants (e.g. costus root, American ginseng, orchids, agarwood, African cherry, hoodia and aloe) and animals (seahorses, musk deer, pangolins); - live reptiles, especially tortoises, but also lizards, chameleons, snakes, iguanas and geckos. Over 6000 live reptiles were seized at EU borders between 2011 and 2014 (some 3200 in 2014 alone); - reptile bodies, parts and derivatives, with over 9600 individual items seized between 2011 and 2014 (some 1600 items in 2014 alone). Most were leather and reptile skin products from snakes, crocodiles and lizards; - live birds and eggs, with a total of over 500 specimens seized between 2011 and 2014; most were parrots smuggled from Africa or Latin America to Europe via transit countries, which attract very high prices on the black market, or birds of prey (see recent case studies 1 and 2 on large-scale cross-border smuggling of rare exotic birds into the EU in the annex to this document);

- mammal bodies, parts and derivatives (skins in particular), including bears, wolves, big cats and bush meat; - live plants, mainly orchids, cacti, euphorbias and cycads, with around 78,000 seized between 2011 and 2014 (some 20,000 in 2014 alone). Other commodities frequently imported illegally into the EU include corals, caviar, timber products, dead birds and invertebrates (bodies, parts and derivatives). Figure 2: Distribution across commodity groups of international seizure records of species mentioned in the Annexes to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, reported by EU countries, 2014. Source: TRAFFIC The main countries of origin of products exported illegally to the EU include the US, mainland China and Hong Kong, and Thailand. Algeria, Morocco, Switzerland, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates have featured increasingly in recent years. Imports into the EU of hunting trophies, particularly from lions and elephants, have attracted considerable attention recently. EU policy on ensuring that trophies from species listed in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 are of legal and sustainable origin is set out in Box 3. Box 3 - Importing hunting trophies into the EU (linked to Action 9) The EU is a significant importer of hunting trophies from CITES-listed species from various countries worldwide. EU Member States reported that an average 2,027 hunting trophies from species listed in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 were imported annually between 2004 and 2013. This figure represents 13% of Annex B trophies traded worldwide. The five main Annex B animals imported into the EU as hunting trophies were, in order, Hartmann's mountain zebra (Equus zebra hartmannae), the American black bear (Ursus americanus), the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), the hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius) and the Chacma baboon (Papio ursinus). Trophy hunting, when well-managed, can be an important conservation tool, as it can generate profits which can be invested for conservation purposes and provide livelihood opportunities for rural communities. However, the sustainability (and ecological consequences) of offtake from populations subject to trophy hunting is sometimes questionable. Concerns have therefore been raised about the sustainability of trade in hunting trophies for some species listed in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, especially where trophies represent a large share of the overall trade affecting the species from the exporting country concerned. Under previous EU rules, EU scientific authorities did not scrutinise imports of Annex B hunting trophies into the EU to ensure that they were not adversely affecting the conservation status of the species. The legality of importing white rhino hunting trophies from South Africa was also questionable (see case study 4, Annex). In 2013 and 2014, the EU conducted (i) a comprehensive assessment of its regulations on importing Annex B hunting trophies to ensure that the sustainability of imports of hunting trophies into the EU is adequately monitored and checked and (ii) a review of the sustainability of such imports for selected species. On the basis of these data and analysis, a wide-reaching consultation with stakeholders and non-EU countries, and consultation with Member States, the Commission changed the EU rules on importing hunting trophies for six species and subspecies in 2015. Member States now have to issue import permits before these species can be imported. The species concerned are the African lion (Panthera leo), the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), the Southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum), the hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius) and the argali sheep (Ovis ammon). The importing country issues an import permit only if its CITES scientific authority issues a positive opinion on the basis of an EU-level assessment that importing such trophies is sustainable. The Scientific Review Group makes this assessment on the basis of clear criteria and information provided by the exporting countries and independent scientific sources, such as analyses by United Nations Environment Programme –World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The EU keeps a regular dialogue with numerous non-EU countries, seeking to improve the sustainability of hunting resulting in trophies. In cases where guarantees of sustainability cannot be provided, the EU Scientific Review Group issues a negative opinion on importing trophies for the species concerned, and no import into the EU is allowed. This is currently the case for a limited number of combinations of species and countries, typically involving high-profile species such as lions (Panthera leo), grey wolves (Canis lupus), hippoes (Hippopotamus amphibious), brown bears (Ursus arctos), polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and African elephants (Loxodonta africana) (See Table 1). Table 1. Species included in Annex A and Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 for which the introduction of hunting trophies into the EU is prohibited EU as a transit region

The EU is, in addition to an end market for illegal wildlife products, also a region through which significant volumes of some of these products transit, particularly between Africa and Asia. Illegal wildlife products are moved through the EU via its ports, airports and, increasingly, mail centres. They include ivory, rhino horns, pangolin scales and dead seahorses (see Box 4). Box 4 - Some significant recent seizures of illegal wildlife products in transit through the EU In 2012, the Belgian authorities intercepted 60 kg of ivory being exported from Belgium to Vietnam. Concealed in wooden clocks, it was detected when a shipment of personal effects was x-rayed. A subsequent search of the sender's premises revealed a further 100 kg (approx.) of ivory in another shipment of antique clocks which had already been prepared for export to Vietnam. A total of 16 000 dead seahorses (Hippocampus spp., Appendix II to CITES/Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97) were seized from postal parcels at airports in Germany in transit from Peru to Hong Kong in May 2013. In March 2014, a total of 152 ivory carvings from Kenya and Nigeria were seized from postal parcels in Germany destined for Hong Kong. Between January and July 2014, ivory was seized on five occasions (three at Prague Airport, two at Frankfurt Airport) from Vietnamese nationals living in the Czech Republic and travelling from the Czech Republic to Vietnam. The total weight of ivory involved was 183.3 kg. In July 2014, 250 kg of pangolin scales (Manis spp., Appendix II to CITES/Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97) detected in air freight were seized in France in transit from Nigeria to Laos. In November 2014, about 30 kg of rhino horns were seized in a UK airport after being detected in air freight travelling from Nigeria to China. In May 2015, the French customs authorities at Roissy Airport seized 37 pieces of raw ivory (totalling 135.6 kg), intended for shipment to Vietnam. Between 2011 and 2014, Member States reported seizures of around 4500 ivory items (tusks, carvings, pieces of ivory, etc.) reported as specimens and an additional 780 kg (approx.) as reported by weight. Most was in transit from various African countries to Asia, particularly China, Hong Kong SAR and Vietnam. So far, the most prominent case of organised criminals using EU countries as transit points for wildlife products is that of the 'rhino pseudo-hunters'. This network hired 'pseudo-hunters' bringing back rhinoceros trophies from South Africa to the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The horns were subsequently smuggled out of the EU to Vietnam (see case study 4 in the annex to this document). EU as a source or export region The EU is also a source or export region for wildlife products exported illegally to non-EU countries. This facet of the problem is often underestimated, particularly by enforcement agencies, which tend to focus instead on checking goods imported into the EU or in transit through it. One of the most serious problems the EU currently faces as a source region for illegal export of wildlife is the large-scale smuggling of European eels (Anguilla anguilla). A. anguilla is classed as 'critically endangered' on the IUCN Red List, and indicators show that its population has fallen by 90% since the 1960s/70s. To enable the eel stock to recover, the EU has adopted a specific Regulation. The species is also included in Appendix II to CITES and Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (see section 3.2). Given the poor situation of the stock, commercial trade in all commodities of A. anguilla to and from the EU was banned in December 2010 under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97. Since the CITES listing of A. anguilla came into force in March 2009 - and in particular since December 2010 - TRAFFIC has regularly analysed CITES data, customs data and East Asian eel farming data, seizures and information from traders, to monitor the trade situation for the European Commission. The data and information collated suggest that 7 - 20 tonnes of juvenile A. anguilla (also called glass eels or live eel fry) were exported illegally to East Asia each year between 2012 and 2015 so that they could grow to maturity on farms in mainland China. According to the same sources, A. anguilla glass eels have sold at EUR 1200-1500/kg in East Asia in recent years. Seizure information reveals an illegal trade in A. anguilla glass eels on a commercial scale through air freight (glass eels are either hidden in shipments of other fishery products or mis-labelled), and, increasingly, through smuggling smaller quantities in personal luggage. For example, in February 2014 Portuguese authorities seized two live glass eel shipments totalling 272 kg (estimated at a value of up to EUR 400,000 in China). These were hidden among other goods, in air freight in transit to mainland China. In January 2015, the Bulgarian authorities seized 37 kg of glass eels at Sofia Airport from the luggage of two Chinese citizens arriving from Spain and on their way to mainland China. One month later, the French authorities seized air freight containing 120 kg of glass eels reportedly originating in the UK and bound for Hong Kong. The illegal trade in glass eels involves direct movement from the main EU source countries (France, Spain, the UK and Portugal) to East Asia (particularly Hong Kong and mainland China), but many other EU Member States and neighbouring countries have been, or are believed to be, used as transit countries. They include Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Morocco and Russia. In 2011-2012, a Spanish operation led to total seizures of 1500 kg of glass eels valued at over EUR 1.6m and the arrest of 14 people. The international smuggling network involved nationals from and/or illegal activities in Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania and Spain. Ivory items originating in the EU also feature among the items illegally exported to Asia. Under EU law, re-export from the EU may be authorised for antique ivory ('worked' specimens acquired before 3 March 1947) and pre-Convention ivory (defined as 'raw' or 'worked' specimens acquired before the date on which CITES became applicable to them, i.e. 26 February 1976 for African elephants and 1 July 1975 for Asian elephants). The growing Asian demand for ivory has boosted both the legal and the illegal export of ivory items from the EU. Most were imported into the EU well before international trade in ivory began to be regulated through the CITES Convention ('pre-Convention items').

In 2014 the European Commission commissioned a report by TRAFFIC on this issue. Together with trade date compiled subsequently, it serves as a basis for the findings set out here. Although it is difficult to ascertain the exact scale of the illegal trade in old ivory items, it seems to have expanded in recent years. As stated in TRAFFIC's report, there are cases of Chinese buyers purchasing antique ivory items legally in the EU with the intention of then illegally exporting them to China with the aim of selling them. For example, in January 2013 two men were arrested at Shanghai airport for attempting to smuggle 37 ivory items reportedly purchased at auction houses, antique fairs and shops from France to China. Furthermore, in June 2013 a Chinese antique dealer was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for attempting to smuggle 14 ivory figurines purchased in Paris. In addition to illegal export, legal exports of 'pre-Convention' ivory items have risen considerably since 2007, with the highest numbers recorded in 2014. According to CITES trade data for 2003-2014, legal commercial re-exports of pre-Convention ivory have risen gradually since 2007. Re-exports from the EU of both worked ivory (carvings) and raw ivory (tusks, ivory pieces and ivory scraps) have increased, with re-exports of tusks rising particularly fast after 2007 (see Figure 3). Between 2003 and 2014, 92% of EU re-exports of pre-Convention ivory tusks (for commercial purposes) were imported by China or Hong Kong. Over this period, 2.8 tonnes of raw ivory (ivory pieces, tusks) were re-exported, 99% from 2007 on. In addition, 4.1 tonnes of worked ivory (carvings) were re-exported, 87% between 2011 and 2014. Moreover, between EU countries reported that 3-6.5 tonnes of whole tusks were re-exported between 2008 and 2014. Re-exports of raw ivory grew during this period. Figure 3: Re-export of pre-Convention raw ivory (tusks) from the EU for commercial purposes, 2003-2014 Source: CITES Trade Database (Dec 2015)

Abbreviations: Imp – Importer-reported quantities, Exp – Exporter-reported quantities

Notes: Importer data from non-EU Member States are not available for 2014 at the time of writing. For the number of records, data reported by the exporters were used. Records reported as kg were also included to represent the total minimum and maximum number of tusks that may have been re- exported by EU countries in 2014. Ivory reported in kg was converted into tusks on the basis of a range of 3.5 kg – 7.5 kg per tusk (T. Milliken, TRAFFIC, pers. comm., 16.8.14). In 2014 a large share of the trade was reported in kg. The main reason for the rising exports referred to above is the commercial activities of companies specialised in collecting old ivory items in the EU to export them to Asia. While such transactions are legal under the current rules, the increasing volume of ivory shipped to Asia has led to concerns that it could fuel a demand for ivory which in turn could drive elephant poaching in source countries. Another challenge is that although applicants for export or re-export permits must prove the legal origin of the items and EU countries scrutinise such applications carefully, it is often difficult to distinguish pre-Convention or worked specimens (which can be legally re-exported from the EU) from other ivory items (for which such export is banned). Some EU Member States (the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK ) have decided against issuing certificates for the re-export of raw ivory items and have called on the Commission to promote a similar approach across the EU, as has been done for rhinoceros horns (see related action 2). Data on the estimated average price per kg of ivory tusks between 2012 and 2014 must be viewed with caution, as these figures are based on specific price information provided by only two Member States (Austria and France) to the Commission, and it is not always clear which stage of the value chain these values represent. Using these estimates, the total value of ivory tusks re-exported from the EU was estimated at: approx. EUR 205,000 in 2012 (based on Austria’s 2012 average price of EUR 438 per kg) approx. EUR 707,000 in 2013 (based on Austria’s 2013 average price of EUR 405 per kg). approx. EUR 814,000 in 2014 (based on an average of Austria's and France’s approximate prices for raw ivory per kg in 2014, EUR 512 and EUR 525 respectively). That figure represents only the value of re-exported tusks. To obtain a comprehensive overview of the value of all legal exports of ivory from the EU, the value of the other ivory items exported should be added. However, due to lack of available data, this could not be done for the present document. Finally, there are serious concerns about the illegal killing and related trade in bird species in the EU. Although the Birds Directive is over 35 years old, illegal activities such as illegally killing, trapping or trading in birds persist. They are instrumental in preventing the objectives of this Directive and the Target 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy of the EU from being achieved. While illegal killing of birds is not the most significant threat to birds overall, it can badly affect bird populations in specific cases (specific species or regions) and the Commission regularly receives complaints about the illegal killing, trapping or trading of birds in the EU (e.g. poisoning of birds of prey in Hungary , the illegal trapping of passerines in Cyprus and consumption in restaurants, with trapped birds being served as delicacies in Italy ). Authorities have also uncovered instances where eggs are illegally imported or collected on a large scale, for instance in Belgium and Finland. While comprehensive quantitative information on the impact on specific species or populations, and on which countries/locations may be most at risk is still lacking, such information does exist on specific practices. For example, Birdlife has recently provided a first analysis of the magnitude of the illegal killing of birds in the Pan-Mediterranean region. It estimates that 11-36 million birds may be illegally killed/taken per year, with some of these ending up in illegal trade. .A report produced for the Commission in 2011 gave an overview of illegal practices regarding the killing and trapping of and the trade in birds within the EU, as reported by Member States. Some practices are still widespread throughout the EU, while others are reported in a few Member States only. 1.3.2 Drivers/facilitators of wildlife trafficking in the EU: sustained demand and insufficient awareness (linked to Actions 1, 6, 7) The EU is an important market for illegal wildlife products, mainly because of EU consumers' sustained demand for a variety of wildlife products. Demand for rare live birds and reptiles in the EU seems to play a particularly significant role in driving illegal imports. Their high prices generate significant profits and attract criminal networks. The illegal trade in exotic pets, especially in live reptiles, has received increased attention, with the EU appearing as an important consumer region and thus driver of this trade. This includes species which, though not covered by the CITES Convention, are protected nationally. Exporting them thus breaks the law of their country of origin. But in the absence of an appropriate legal basis through a CITES listing, EU Member States are not always able to seize these species once they are on the EU market. In addition, in many cases tourists bring back parts of CITES-listed species, or products derived from them, without the necessary export or import permits. Low consumer awareness of the rules governing the wildlife trade and of the seriousness of the issue also facilitates the illegal trade in wildlife products. This lack of awareness is prevalent amongst many different groups of stakeholders.

While environment ministries often rightly identify wildlife trafficking as a major factor in biodiversity loss, policymakers generally lack awareness of its adverse impact on the economy and the rule of law, and of its links with organised crime and national security. Respondents participating in the stakeholder consultation which the Commission launched in February 2014 generally rated the EU regulatory framework as adequate in terms of tackling the illegal trade in wildlife products from, to and through the EU. However, most identified its patchy, inadequate implementation and enforcement as one of the main shortcomings in existing EU policy to combat wildlife trafficking. Accordingly, the main purpose of an EU Action Plan was seen as demonstrating political commitment to tackling the problem. Another aspect of this low awareness is the relatively limited involvement of the business sector so far in combating wildlife trafficking. The main private sector players affected by wildlife trafficking include those trading legally in wildlife products (e.g. importers, exporters, breeders, the pet industry, the luxury industry using reptile skins or caviar, the timber industry, auction houses, antique shops, hunters and zoos), the tourism sector, and those involuntarily facilitating the illegal wildlife trade (e.g. transport companies, online platforms, courier companies). Responses to the Commission stakeholder consultation stressed the importance of reaching out to the private sector active in wildlife harvesting, trading and processing. In a few areas, the business sector has taken steps to develop a proactive corporate policy to promote a legal, sustainable trade in wildlife. The timber industry, for instance, has developed certification schemes for legal timber. Another example is the policy agreed by the European Association for Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA), which represents 377 zoos and aquaria in 43 countries throughout Europe and the Middle East. The benefits of EAZA membership include the opportunities it provides to acquire animals from other members; technical support; comparison of marketing opportunities between members; increased training opportunities for members; and improved networking opportunities. In exchange, EAZA members must meet stringent requirements including ‘compliance with national and international legislation regarding animal and plant acquisition, possession and transport’. All organisations must be screened before they can be accredited as EAZA members - which can take over a year - and they can be suspended if they break any of the rules. Some EU Member States have also been active in engaging with relevant business sectors. For example, in 2011 and 2012 Finland sent specific written guidance to non-commercial tortoise breeders, caviar producing and packing plants, hunters, and guitar makers. Since 2011 Belgium’s CITES Management Authority has issued detailed information on CITES regulations to antique dealers, auction houses, taxidermists, tropical timber importers, and keepers/breeders of birds of prey, parrots and tortoises. It has also held discussions with charity shops to establish guidelines on CITES products that may be donated. In 2013, the German Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) handed out leaflets at the Vintage Guitar Show to inform musicians, wholesalers, luthiers and wood trading operations about the legal requirements covering CITES-protected wood types. The UN World Tourism Organisation recently highlighted the potential for engaging the tourism sector (especially tour operators from Europe and Africa) in efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. A study commissioned by the Commission in 2015 on input and ideas for further developing cooperation with relevant business sectors to prevent wildlife trafficking in the EU found that, apart from the reptile skin industry associated with the luxury sector, there are only a few business-led initiatives or public-private partnerships in that field in the EU (see Box 5). Box 5: Main findings of the study 'Strengthening cooperation with business sectors against illegal trade in wildlife', conducted by Ricardo AEA and TRAFFIC for the European Commission The study focused on: • sectors involved in importing wildlife products into the EU (i.e. luxury industry; pet sector; and traditional Chinese medicine – TCM); • sectors facilitating trade in the EU (transport, courier and online trading). In relation to each of these sectors, this study found that: • The luxury industry has a relatively small number of companies dealing in exotic skins. Several luxury brands are owned by larger firms that also own tanneries and farms for breeding animals in captivity. In 2012, the volume and value of skin imports were the second highest among all CITES-listed wildlife commodity imports (excluding caviar extract). The value of this trade exceeded an estimated EUR 167m in 2012, with reptiles representing most of the estimated value (92%). However, less is known about private sector engagement as regards other luxury products, such as furs, shahtoosh, ivory and caviar. The luxury industry has a high level of commitment to preventing trafficking in the reptile skins it uses and has established several ongoing initiatives to address potential issues. The Python Conservation Partnership is a good example of a business-led initiative to ensure the legal and sustainable sourcing of python skins, which is embedded in a wider corporate social responsibility policy of ensuring sustainability. • Business engagement in the wildlife-pet sector appears low, even though the EU is among the world's largest importers of live reptiles. The pet sector has been strongly criticised in connection with animal welfare, so much of its action has focused on this issue. Given this focus, there seems to be relatively little awareness that wildlife trafficking is a serious problem and that the sector could do a great deal to tackle it. However, there are signs that it may be possible to promote more active engagement, which may create opportunities for addressing traceability issues. • It is not easy to assess business engagement in tackling wildlife trafficking in the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) sector. This project contacted eight major EU TCM associations and federations, hoping to enquire about their efforts - or those of their members – in tackling illegal wildlife trafficking. The two replies received stated that illegal wildlife products were not relevant to their operations. The UK "Operation Charm" (OC) includes an apparently rare example of business sector engagement by TCM associations and companies. It is clear from Operation Charm, and evidence from the TCM sector in general, that anti-wildlife trafficking efforts in the sector have focused on awareness raising. Although research has attempted to find EU-wide business efforts related to the sector, little is known about whether or not any efforts are currently being made elsewhere in the EU, particularly as regards to ongoing efforts. Various EU-based manufacturers of herbal products, particularly in the UK, are using the FairWild certification scheme to source selected wild plant ingredients. • Transport companies have done little to tackle wildlife trafficking, although recently efforts have been renewed as regards air transport, globally at least. More targeted efforts to address wildlife trafficking generally focus on discussing and identifying possible action. They are still at an early stage, and concrete measures have yet to be planned. Wildlife trafficking is, in general, a relatively new issue for the transport sector. EU-based airlines have paid little attention to the issue, so existing anti-wildlife-trafficking measures still have many shortcomings. Several airlines have individually banned certain wildlife products on their aircraft. • Many couriers maintain their own cargo operations, so there is a clear overlap with the activities of transport companies. Until very recently, courier companies have made very little effort to tackle wildlife trafficking. Globally, several NGOs have stepped up their efforts to raise awareness of wildlife trade issues among courier companies and attempted to define measures they can implement. To date, however, EU-based courier businesses have played a minimal role in tackling wildlife trafficking. • Online trading has boomed over the last 20 years, but does not appear to have been matched by business efforts to stop the trade in illegal wildlife products. Online trading companies’ existing wildlife trade policies vary widely, from simply displaying a short statement to providing links to national legislation, while others, such as eBay, have more comprehensive policies. However, customer access to relevant wildlife policies often requires considerable effort. This could be made easier through existing online systems. Many businesses that do have clear wildlife trade policies appear to do relatively little to enforce them. The listings of many wildlife products clearly breach company policy. Capacity issues related to enforcement of wildlife policy, including an ability to identify coded descriptions of wildlife products, and the identification of such products, clearly limit the enforcement of business policy. Businesses do not appear to pass cases on to law enforcement agencies, though they do take action and provide relevant information if they receive a direct request from these agencies.

2. The impact of wildlife trafficking 2.1 Impact on biodiversity Wildlife trafficking, along with habitat loss, climate change and the spread of invasive species, ranks among the most serious threats to biodiversity worldwide. UNEP has comprehensively analysed the environmental impact of the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products. The report, prepared in implementation of a 2014 resolution by the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA), will be considered by governments at UNEA's second session in May 2016. Primarily, wildlife trafficking has a direct impact on target species. These species are often already threatened and wildlife trafficking represents an additional stress which contributes to their overexploitation. An illegal and unsustainable offtake reduces population to such an extent that the species' long-term survival may be jeopardised. In the most extreme cases, such pressures can lead to the extinction of the target species (as with the Western Black rhinoceros, for example, declared extinct in 2011, with poaching listed as the primary cause). For more information on the impact of wildlife trafficking on target species, see point 1.1. above. Wildlife trafficking can be very harmful to target and non-target species alike (for example when illegal logging destroys flora and fauna habitats, depending on the forest environment concerned, or when non-selective fishing results in by-catches of other marine species). Beyond this direct impact, the loss of wild fauna and flora linked to wildlife trafficking can change the patterns of whole ecosystems. Such loss can affect their balance, undermining their function and the services they provide, which are essential for the survival of many other wild plants and animals. For example, forest elephants are key seed dispersers, so if numbers decline through poaching, forest regeneration is affected. The illegal trade in live animals and plants also avoids any sanitary, veterinary and health controls and may spread diseases and invasive species. This can have unexpected detrimental consequences for other species. The information already available indicates that the adverse impact of wildlife trafficking on biodiversity calls for action by the EU to implement its commitments under its 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, especially target 6, which requires the EU to do more to avert global biodiversity loss under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other programmes. Wildlife trafficking is also a factor in biodiversity loss in the EU, along with other, greater threats, such as land-use change, over-exploitation of biodiversity and its components, the spread of invasive alien species, pollution and climate change. Wildlife trafficking has a particularly serious impact in the EU on species that are already under considerable pressure, with poaching and subsequent trade representing a further stress. This applies to European birds and the European eel, for example (see point 1.3 above). 2.2 Economic impact of wildlife trafficking Impact on legal trade Wildlife trafficking has an adverse impact on operators trading legally in wildlife or wildlife products in compliance with the relevant international, EU or national rules. The global wildlife trade was estimated at USD 323bn in 2009, including timber, fish (not from aquaculture), wild animals and plants. The EU is an important market for legal wildlife products, and a major exporter (including timber, non-farmed fish, wild animals and plants). EU trade in wildlife products is estimated at about EUR 100bn. In 2013, EU countries reported about 95,000 import transactions and 200,000 export transactions of specimens of species covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97. For CITES-listed animals (excluding caviar extract), the value of EU imports in 2013 was estimated at EUR 582m, whereas the value of EU exports was estimated at more than twice that value (approximately EUR 1.4bn). The main traded commodities are live plants, leather products (1.2 million reptile skins were imported), live animals (one million animals were imported and 133,000 live birds were exported in 2013), and caviar. Legal and illegal wildlife trade sometimes takes place in parallel to one another. Operators trading wildlife products in the EU (e.g. importers, exporters, breeders, the pet industry, luxury industries using reptile skins or caviar, the timber industry, auction houses, antique shops, hunters, zoos) face unfair competition from illegal traders in wildlife products that avoid supervision or checks, sometimes selling at much lower prices than on the official market. Perhaps more importantly, the behaviour of illegal operators all too often tarnishes the sector's image, to the detriment of legal traders. This reputational damage may deter potential customers. Impact on tourism and government revenue in source countries Wildlife trafficking also has a particularly strong impact on countries whose economy relies largely on nature-based tourism, where wildlife is the main attraction and consequently a considerable economic asset. The destruction of wildlife translates directly into irreversible economic losses. Finding reliable up-to-date statistics on nature-based tourism is challenging. The limited data available are often contradictory. Most data on tourism's share of GDP draws no distinction between general tourism (cultural heritage, business tourism, diaspora tourism) and nature-based tourism. However, the latter probably accounts for a significant proportion of tourism in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in southern and eastern Africa. In 2004, 50% of Africa’s nature tourists and 60% of the resultant revenue went to South Africa . A further distinction should be drawn between wildlife-based tourism (visiting protected areas and conservancies, birding tours, etc.) and beach tourism. The number of visitors to sub-Saharan Africa has grown over 300% since 1990, with 33.8 million tourists visiting the region in 2012. In 2012, revenue from tourism exceeded US$ 36bn, directly contributing just over 2.8% to the region’s GDP. Five per cent of jobs in sub-Saharan Africa are in travel and tourism.

Box 6: Tourism's share of GDP in selected African countries: • > 8%: Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Namibia. • 4-8%: Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Botswana, Madagascar • 2-3.9%: South Africa, Mozambique, Senegal, Mali, Ghana, Togo, Benin. • 1-1.9%: Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Niger, Cameroon. Iconic species such as the mountain gorilla have enormous potential for contributing to national economies. Rwanda had over a million visitors between 2006 and 2013, with its national parks alone generating USD 75m in tourism revenue. Eighty-five percent of this is from trekkers attracted by the country's mountain gorillas. In Uganda, a single family of gorillas can generate over USD 500,000 annually from the sale of gorilla permits. Bwindi National Park generates USD 15m/year from gorilla visits. Additionally, tourists spend a similar amount on accommodation, transport and other services. Although the three countries that share the mountain gorilla population (Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Rwanda) have been in conflict with each other for most of the past 30 years, they have consistently worked together to protect this economically important species. The gorilla population has risen steadily throughout this period. Without the economic benefits provided by gorilla tourism, the species would probably be on the brink of extinction by now. Some flagship protected areas generate very large revenues: in 2009, the Northern circuit at Serengeti-Ngorongoro received 300,000 tourists on the 300 km stretch between Arusha and Serengeti. The total inbound tourism expenditure generated at this destination is USD 500m per year - over half of Tanzania’s foreign exchange earnings from tourism. If wildlife trafficking continues on the current scale, depleting national parks of iconic species, this revenue will shrink significantly. Finally, the non-payment or underestimation of tax and customs duties by illegal traders also deprives governments of income. Though hard to quantify such losses are likely to be considerable, given the large volume and high value of smuggled wildlife commodities. This has a major adverse impact, especially in developing countries. Finally, paying for tougher law enforcement measures, such as more rangers and patrols, is an additional burden. 2.3 Impact on governance and the rule of law Corruption and wildlife trafficking are closely linked, as section 1.2.3 shows. In many cases, it is corruption that enables wildlife trafficking to flourish. Conversely, wildlife trafficking creates an environment conducive to corruption, which can undermine the proper functioning of state institutions. The examples below illustrate how corruption associated with wildlife trafficking can facilitate impunity and erode state institutions: -Hunting groups evading national and international regulations thanks to the protection of local patrons; -Bribery of public officials to avoid paying tax, duties, tariffs and other fees; -Illegal payments to avoid investigations or prosecutions, or to obstruct justice; -Illegal payments or use of personal relationships to obtain favourable sentences in court. As a result, corruption undermines not only governments' best efforts to protect wildlife and regulate trade effectively, but also the institutions responsible for implementation. This obstructs the full development of transparent, ethical and effective government institutions. In some cases, huge profits from wildlife trafficking help maintain or increase collusion between organised crime networks and government representatives at the highest level, weakening fragile institutions and the rule of law. 2.4 Impact on national and regional security (linked to Action 32) The links between wildlife trafficking and security in some regions have received increasing attention in recent years, especially as regards the role of wildlife trafficking in financing the operations of armed militias and possibly terrorist networks. Rangers are on the front line in the fight against poaching and the first victims of criminal wildlife gangs. An estimated 1000 rangers have been killed in anti-poaching operations over the last decade. Despite the significant knowledge gap as regards the scale of links between poaching and wildlife trafficking on the one hand and the funding of militias and terrorism on the other, there are reports confirming the existence of such links with several militia groups. Politically, the link has been acknowledged at the highest level in multilateral and bilateral frameworks. For example, the United States consider wildlife trafficking a 'threat to global security'. The Commission in its recently proposed Action Plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing acknowledges the importance of tackling wildlife trafficking as a source of funding.

The 2015 G7 Summit Declaration set out a commitment by the heads of state and government 'to combating wildlife trafficking, which is pushing some of the world’s species to the brink of extinction and in some instances is being used to finance organised crime, insurgencies, and terrorism', thus acknowledging – once more - the impact of this form of trafficking on global security. Similarly, UN General Assembly Resolution 69/314 on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife recognises that this form of trafficking threatens national stability in some cases. In a report to the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary-General (UNSG), Ban Ki-moon, noted that 'poaching and its potential linkages to other criminal, even terrorist, activities constitute a grave menace to sustainable peace and security in Central Africa.' The same report warns that 'illegal ivory trade may currently constitute an important source of funding for armed groups' and 'poachers are using more and more sophisticated and powerful weapons, some of which, it is believed, might be originating from the fallout in Libya.' Successive UNSG reports on the activities of the United Nations Regional Office for Central Africa note increasing links between elephant poaching, weapons proliferation and regional insecurity. The latest report highlights 'the growing links between the illicit wildlife trade and armed groups in the sub-region, including the Lord’s Resistance Army'. The Security Council addressed the link between instability in the Democratic Republic of Congo and wildlife trafficking in the context of the sanctions applicable to those responsible for worsening the country's instability. Renewing the sanctions regime, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2198/2015, which targets individuals and entities supporting individuals or entities, including armed groups that are involved in destabilising activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo through the illicit trade in natural resources, including gold, wildlife and wildlife products. The Resolution’s preamble recalled 'the linkage between the illegal exploitation of natural resources, including poaching and illegal trafficking of wildlife, illicit trade in such resources, and the proliferation and trafficking of arms as one of the major factors fuelling and exacerbating conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa'. Security Council Resolution 2196/2015 expresses concern that 'illicit trade, exploitation and smuggling of natural resources including gold, diamonds and wildlife poaching and trafficking continues to threaten the peace and stability of the Central African Republic'. In this context, it is significant that the initial mandates of the UN peacekeeping missions in the Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo included supporting the authorities in preventing armed groups from exploiting and trading in natural resources. The renewed mandates of both missions maintain the link between instability and the use of natural resources by or for the benefit of armed groups. The EU-UN Strategic Partnership on Peacekeeping and Crisis Management: Priorities for 2015-2018 also advocates stepping up cooperation on the illegal trade in wildlife as a priority among other cross-cutting issues of mutual concern, such as terrorism and transnational organised crime, including trafficking in drugs and arms. At a recent informal meeting of the UN Security Council held on 30 November 2015, concerning the impact of the illicit transfer of small arms and light weapons on poaching in Africa, several Member States and stakeholders acknowledged the link between illegal exploitation and the trade in natural resources on the one hand, and the proliferation and trafficking of arms on the other, as a major factor in fuelling conflict in African countries. Exactly how much ivory trafficking contributes to funding militia groups remains unclear. One report notes that, given extremely high levels of elephant poaching in the Kivu region over the last decade, ivory now contributes far less to militia funding than timber and charcoal. The fact that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) launches attacks near national parks in the triangle formed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and the Central African Republic seems to support reports by fighters in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Garamba National park of continued ivory trafficking by LRA leader Joseph Kony. Beyond the Great Lakes region, the recently agreed EU Horn of Africa Regional Action Plan for 2015-2020 acknowledges, in the context of 'regional security and stability', that the EU should seek to do more to help its partners investigate, detect and prosecute wildlife trafficking more effectively. 3. Action at global and EU level 3.1 Initiatives at global level (linked to action 33) Wildlife trade is regulated at international level through the CITES Convention, a major international agreement that has been in force since 1975, now has 182 parties (including all EU Member States and since July 2015 the EU itself) and covers 35 000 animal and plant species. The main added value of the Convention is global protection for animal and plant species. The inclusion of a species in the CITES Appendices is often a very important step in raising public awareness of the fact that it is or might become endangered because of international trade. This can play an important role in reducing supply and demand for the species and keeping trade at sustainable levels. A CITES listing also creates an obligation for governments to control trade in the relevant products and seize them if they are traded in contravention of CITES provisions. In addition, with the level of global policy concern about illicit wildlife trade arguably stronger now than at any time since the Convention entered into force, there is a strong focus on wildlife trafficking in its work. This translates in particular through the adoption by the CITES Conference of Parties and by the CITES Standing Committee of targeted recommendations designed to address specific shortcomings in the implementation of the CITES Convention. The CITES Standing Committee is tasked with monitoring how these recommendations are followed by CITES Parties and is empowered to adopt compliance measures, such as prohibition to trade in all CITES-listed products, in case of serious failure by a Party to comply with its obligations. One key example is the establishing of national ivory action plans required of eight countries implicated in the global illegal ivory trade: China and Thailand (end-use markets), Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam (transit countries) and Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (source and exit points in Africa). These detailed, time-bound plans aim to address the illegal flow of ivory along the trade chain. The CITES National Ivory Action Plan process also identified a number of countries of secondary concern and importance that need to be watched. The process has become a valuable and practical tool that is being used by the parties to the Convention to strengthen controls on trade in ivory and ivory markets, and help combat illegal trade in ivory. Each plan outlines the urgent measures that a CITES party commits itself to taking (including legislative, enforcement and public awareness-raising, as required), along with specific timeframes and milestones for implementation. Significantly, countries are accountable for ensuring progress, with the threat of CITES trade restrictions for noncompliance. CITES decisions in 2013 call on three of the countries at the centre of the rhinopoaching crisis (Mozambique, South Africa and Vietnam) to take firm action to address the surge in rhino-poaching and illegal trade. A key development is that countries will have to implement strategies to reduce demand for rhino horn. The recommendation to implement a demandreduction strategy for an endangered species was a first for CITES and indicative of the more sophisticated approaches it is exploring to stem the tide of illegal killing. In 2013, CITES also approved enhanced protection measures for tigers, including the gathering of information on incidents of poaching and illegal trade in all Asian big cats and analysing it at meetings of the CITES Standing Committee to ensure that CITES provisions on illicit tiger trade are implemented by all range and consumer states. The forthcoming 17th Conference of the Parties (CoP17) in September 2016 is also expected to focus on pangolins. As ever, the real test of the positive action taken by CITES will be whether the governments concerned take effective action on the ground – and whether they are held to account if they fail to do so. The international community has a vital role to play in driving effective implementation by ensuring that there is a high degree of accountability where there is a lack of progress on parties’ commitments and demonstrating that CITES does have ‘teeth’. Beyond CITES as the core convention, the topic of wildlife trafficking has attracted the attention of various bodies in the UN system. In 2013, the issue of illegal wildlife trade was discussed for the first time at the UN General Assembly and this led to the adoption at its 69th session in July 2015 of a Resolution committing countries to step up their collective efforts to address wildlife crime and put an end to the global poaching crisis. Resolution A/RES/69/314 on tackling the illicit trafficking in wildlife was co-sponsored by Gabon, Germany and over 80 other countries, including all EU Member States, and is the culmination of three years of diplomatic efforts. The Resolution encourages countries to ‘adopt effective measures to prevent and counter the serious problem of crimes that have an impact on the environment, such as illicit trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products … as well as poaching’. It also recognises the broader impact of wildlife crime, including the ways in which it undermines good governance, the rule of law and the wellbeing of local communities. Action along the entire trade chain is encouraged, with member states urged to treat wildlife trafficking involving organised criminal groups as a serious crime, implement anti-money laundering measures, establish national interagency wildlife crime task forces, strengthen judicial processes and law-enforcement efforts, prevent and counter corruption, and reduce the demand for threatened wildlife products ‘using targeted strategies in order to influence consumer behaviour’. The General Assembly Resolution builds on a Resolution passed at the first UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in June 2014 following a joint EU-African Union initiative, which strongly encouraged governments to commit themselves to targeted action to eradicate the supply and transit of, and demand for, illegal wildlife products – a key focus of UNEP’s work with member states. The UNEA Resolution promotes zero-tolerance policies and the development of sustainable and alternative livelihoods for communities adversely affected by illegal trade. These UN-based initiatives have been complemented by high-level multilateral initiatives led by individual countries. In February 2014, the UK Government convened the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, which was attended by heads of state, ministers and highlevel representatives from the EU and 46 countries, including those most heavily impacted by poaching and illegal trade of wildlife. In a strongly-worded declaration, they undertook to take ‘decisive and urgent action’ to tackle global illegal wildlife trade and agreed strong measures to: eradicate the market for illegal wildlife products;

strengthen law-enforcement efforts; ensure that effective legal frameworks and deterrents are in place; and promote sustainable livelihoods through positive engagement with local communities. At a follow-up conference in Botswana a year later, participants adopted the Kasane Statement, reaffirming their determination to scale up their response to the global poaching crisis and adopting crucial new measures to: tackle money laundering and other financial aspects of wildlife crime; engage relevant rural community groups; engage further with the private sector, including logistics and transport companies; and renew efforts to understand the motivation and behaviour of consumers of illegal wildlife products. A major step forward in the strengthening of enforcement efforts worldwide was the creation in 2011 of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), consisting of the CITES Secretariat, Interpol , UNODC, the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation (WCO). ICCWC pools the expertise of five international organisations on the basis that, by aligning their efforts, they could provide a catalyst for significantly enhanced global cooperation and capacity to combat wildlife and forest crimes. Key aims include long-term capacity-building (including the use of modern investigative techniques, such as deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA analysis) and improving international information and intelligence exchange, and thus the coordination of enforcement efforts. ICCWC has also provided support at the request of countries in specific emergency situations. The Commission is among its main donors, having provided EUR 1.7 million over three years. An important ICCWC product is the ‘wildlife and forest crime analytic toolkit’, designed to facilitate national assessments of the main issues relating to wildlife and forest offences, and to identify the preventive and criminal justice responses required at national level. Individual countries have also significantly stepped up their efforts to counter wildlife trafficking in recent years. This includes some key source and market countries, such as the United States (like the EU an important market for illegal wildlife products), which has created a Presidential Task Force and adopted a national strategy with a comprehensive action plan. China has taken important steps recently to improve implementation and enforcement of its rules on wildlife trade, raise its citizens’ awareness of wildlife trafficking and intensify cooperation with other countries on this issue. The main features of its policy on wildlife trafficking were set out in a 10-action-point programme presented by the State Forestry Administration in May 2015. In September 2015, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping issued a joint statement recognising the importance and urgency of combating wildlife trafficking, committing their countries to taking positive measures against it, including measures to restrict ivory trade, cooperating in joint training, technical exchanges, information sharing, public education, enhancement of international law-enforcement cooperation and cooperation with other countries. In December 2015, at a meeting of the new Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, leaders from China and 50 African countries undertook to cooperate against wildlife trafficking. 3.2 The framework for action at EU level Wildlife trade has been regulated at EU level since 1983. The main legal instruments are Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, which incorporates CITES provisions into EU law, and the Commission Regulations implementing it. These ‘EU Wildlife Trade Regulations’ go beyond CITES in many respects, in particular by regulating trade in non-CITES listed species, imposing stricter import restrictions for some species and empowering the EU to suspend imports of species from particular exporting countries. Implementation of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations is regularly monitored by the Commission, working with Member States and an internationally-recognised leading expert body in the area of wildlife trade (TRAFFIC). It is assessed through meetings with Member States (10 per year) which focus on the scientific, management and enforcement aspects of the legislation and the implementation of Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC. Member States report every year to the Commission on trade in specimens covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) analyses these data, partly with a view to detecting trade authorised in contravention of EU law. Member States also submit comprehensive twoyearly reports on measures taken to fulfil their obligations under EU wildlife trade law. An analysis of these reports is carried out every two years by TRAFFIC for the European Commission, with the latest report published in January 2016. At each twiceyearly meeting of the EU Wildlife Trade Enforcement Group (chaired by the Commission and with participants from all Member States and relevant international institutions), a presentation is made of the latest trends in illegal wildlife trade in the EU and measures taken by Member States (seizures, prosecutions, sanctions, cooperation with Europol and nonEU countries). The Commission feeds this information and data submitted to the European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange (EUTWIX) into annual overviews of wildlife seizures in the EU. In addition to this regular review of the implementation of the EU legal framework, the Commission carried out an extensive analysis of the framework on the basis of a report published in December 2007, followed by consultations with stakeholders and Member States. It concluded that there was no need to revisit Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, but that Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 should be amended. This was then done through Commission Regulation (EU) No 791/2012. In addition, on the basis of an agreement with the Member States, the Commission developed guidance documents on the interpretation of some specific provisions of the legal framework. This is the case in particular of the guidance document on the export, re-export, import and intra-EU trade of rhinoceros horns, adopted in January 2016 and designed to ensure that the EU is not used as a destination, transit or source region for illegal trade in rhinoceros horns. In January 2015, Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/56 made further changes to Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (as regards the creation of musical instrument certificates, import rules on hunting trophies from some species and clarification of the legal basis for refusing the import of animals or plants when the legality of their acquisition is not sufficiently ascertained). Other relevant EU instruments include the Nature (Birds and Habitat) Directives 2009/147/EC and 92/43/EEC, which prohibit the sale and transport of a number of strictly protected wild species in the EU. Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law requires Member States to consider wildlife trafficking as a criminal offence, but does not establish common forms or levels of sanction other than asking for proportionate, effective and dissuasive criminal sanctions. The Commission’s assessment of Member States’ transposition of the Directive is ongoing and the Directive will be reviewed in 2016 in the context of the EU’s Agenda on Security.

4. Challenges under the current approach 4.1 Implementation and enforcement of existing rules in the EU 4.1.1 Uneven implementation and enforcement throughout the EU (linked to actions 9, 10, 11, 14 and 19) There are considerable differences in systems used to enforce the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. This was highlighted as a major problem in the responses to the Commission’s 2014 stakeholder consultation. In this section, we seek to illustrate the varying level of implementation/enforcement across the Member States. Several parameters and aspects of the implementation and enforcement of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations can be used to compare Member States’ performance relatively objectively. These range from the rate of consultation with the scientific authority/ies before CITES documents are issued, through the rate at which Member States report on seizures to the level of enforcement effort in implementing the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. In the context of such a comparison, the consideration of certain ‘external’ (economic and geographical) parameters is also important to reflect Member States’ relative importance and the possible impact of insufficient implementation. For instance, Member States with high external trade levels or hosting large trade hubs (sea ports or airports) will by default have a greater responsibility in ensuring proper enforcement of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. A number of Member States have external land borders towards the east and south, which also entail additional responsibility in terms of ensuring effective enforcement. The impact of an implementation gap is likely to be much greater in such Member States than in a Member State with less external trade or in a different location. The number of seizures and confiscations, other enforcement action taken and sanctions imposed give an indication of the overall enforcement level in the Member States. Number of seizures and confiscations Accurately identifying trends in illegal trade (either over time or when comparing countries) is complicated, in particular because we do not know what proportion of illegal transactions is seized (seizure rate) and what proportion of these is reported (reporting rate). A country’s seizure rate may vary depending on the levels and nature of illegal trade and on its enforcement effort, i.e. resources committed to law enforcement – the number, equipment, training and knowledge of staff all affect enforcement effort and the ability to make seizures. Seizure data from 2012 were used to compare seizure numbers and enforcement effort across the EU. Three Member States reported by far the largest numbers of seizures (records) across the EU (59 % of the total). These were followed by seven Member States that together were responsible for reporting 35 % of all seizures. The remaining 18 Member States reported less than 6 % of total seizures reported for 2012. Given the total reported legal imports of wildlife products for the same year, 11 Member States appeared to have seized less than would have been expected, possibly indicating different levels of enforcement/effort. Beyond seizures – enforcement action proxy Due to the nature of illegal trade, it is very difficult to determine true enforcement levels/success. Seizures and seizure trends over time are often used to describe enforcement levels, but this is fraught with problems of data interpretation. For example, differences in seizure rates may be due to differences in enforcement effort, detection levels or levels of actual illegal trade. Therefore, in an attempt to identify differences in enforcement action, Member States’ answers to four enforcementrelated questions in EU CITES biennial reports for 2013-2014 were analysed in combination, to create an ‘enforcement action proxy’ (see Figure 4). The questions concerned regular checks on traders and holders carried out incountry, risk and intelligence assessment used to ensure thorough checks at borders and in-country, cooperation with other Member States’ enforcement agencies on investigations of offences, and the establishment of a specialised unit for CITES-related enforcement. Figure 4: Number of positive answers to four enforcement-related questions from EU Member States’ 2013-2014 biennial reports Source: data in 2013-2014 CITES biennial reports. Undetected cases The covert nature of the illegal wildlife trade makes it difficult to carry out quantitative analyses of the situation. However, it is possible to estimate seizure rates on the basis of the number of shipments exported from or transited through specific countries, but seized elsewhere, i.e. not detected by the exporting or transit countries. Available EU seizure data (2011-2013) indicate that some Member States let a number of illegal shipments pass through their territories without detecting them. Some of these have key air/sea ports for entry of goods into the EU. This suggests that these Member States need to step up their enforcement effort so that shipments are intercepted at the first point of entry into the EU. Sanctions Presently, sanction levels vary widely across the EU Member States. Many stakeholders raised this as a source of major concern in the Commission’s 2014 stakeholder consultation. Similarly, concern has been expressed in a number of reports that the severity of fines and prison sentences imposed in the EU fails to reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the value of the wildlife on the international (black) market, and lack deterrent effect. Also, some Member States have pointed to what they see as the ‘leniency’ of court rulings, particularly on offences concerning specimens listed in Annex A. Current EU legislation leaves a significant margin of discretion for Member States when it comes to determining sanctions. Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains a minimum list of infringements in respect of which Member States must take appropriate measures and adopt national legislation to ensure the imposition of adequate sanctions. It further requires that sanctions reflect the nature and gravity of infringements and involve seizure and, where appropriate, confiscation of the specimens concerned. Directive 2008/99/EC, which entered into force in December 2010, obliges Member States to treat the unlawful killing, destruction, possession, taking of, or trade in, protected animal and plant species as a criminal offence and to establish ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ criminal penalties in their national legislation, but does not stipulate forms or levels of penalty.

Based on the penalty information available, 21 Member States (75 %) reported that penalties reflect the market and conservation value of the species, and the costs incurred. However, in three Member States, penalties do not appear to take account of the conservation/market value of the species. There is no information available on this issue for four Member States, which reported these considerations as ‘variable’. The following section presents information and indicators as regards the application of sanctions for wildlife crime in the EU. The Commission keeps a table on minimum and maximum penalties, which was last updated