REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Progress report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking
Date: 2018-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: action programme, animal life, environmental cooperation, fight against crime, illicit trade, organised crime, plant life, protected species, protection of animals, protection of plant life

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.10.2018  COM(2018) 711 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Progress report on the implementation of the    EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking {SWD(2018) 452 final}  
 
 
1. Introduction  

In February 2016, the European Commission adopted a Communication entitled ‘EU Action 
Plan  against  Wildlife  Trafficking’1  containing  a  comprehensive  strategy  to  fight  wildlife 
crime  inside  the  European  Union  (EU)  and  to  strengthen  the  EU's  role  in  the  global  fight 
against  these  illegal activities. The Action Plan contains 32 actions,  structured around three 
priorities: (i) preventing wildlife trafficking and addressing its root causes; (ii) implementing 
and  enforcing  existing  rules  and  combating  organised  wildlife  crime  more  effectively;  and 
(iii) strengthening the  global  partnership of source,  consumer and transit  countries  against 
wildlife trafficking. 

On 20 June 2016, the Council of the EU adopted conclusions2 on the Action Plan, endorsing 
its  three  priorities  and  calling  for  its  timely  implementation.  The  European  Parliament  also 
welcomed the Action Plan in a November 2016 resolution3. 

The Action Plan covers a five-year period from 2016 to 2020. Both the Action Plan and the 
Council  conclusions  indicate  that  the  European  Commission  should  report  by  July  2018  on 
progress in implementing the Action Plan and on whether its priorities and objectives are still 
appropriate and relevant. 

This  report  presents  an  overview  of  progress  that  all  relevant  actors  have  made  in 
implementing  the  Action  Plan,  based  primarily  on  the  information  submitted  by  25  EU 
Member  States,  the  European  External  Action  Service,  Europol,  Eurojust  and  European 
networks specialising in the enforcement of EU environmental law. 

More information  on the  measures taken to  implement the Action Plan can  be found  in  the 
staff working document accompanying this report. The contributions from the Member States 
have been made available on the Commission website4. 

2. Key steps taken since the adoption of the Action Plan in 2016 

This  section  summarises  the  most  important  steps  taken  since  2016  to  pursue  the  three 
priorities of the Action Plan, as well as, where relevant, the additional measures planned to 
attain its objectives. 

1   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:87:FIN  
2   http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10512-2016-INIT/en/pdf  
3   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-

0454+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN  

4   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/trafficking_en.htm  

1 

 
 
 
                                                            
Priority 1 – Preventing wildlife trafficking and addressing its root causes  

The first priority of the Action Plan is for the EU and its Member States to tackle the multiple 
root causes of wildlife trafficking. Combating wildlife trafficking can only be successful if its 
structural drivers are addressed. 

Reducing  the  demand  for  illegal  wildlife  products  is  a  key  element  of  the  EU  strategy 
against wildlife trafficking and many initiatives have been launched with this goal. The EU 
and  some  Member  States  have  been  supporting  public  authorities  and  civil  society 
organisations in Asia in their efforts to curb the demand for illegal wildlife products, notably 
from  rhinoceros,  elephants  and  pangolins.  Acknowledging  that  the  EU  is  also  an  important 
market for wildlife products, unprecedented efforts have been made to raise the awareness of 
business, consumers and the general public about the features and scale of wildlife trafficking 
in  the  EU.  Many  Member  States  have  carried  out  information  campaigns  on  wildlife 
trafficking,  sometimes  focusing  on  specific  sectors  of  particular  relevance  (e.g.  exotic  pets, 
musical instruments, air transport or online trade). Similar efforts have also been made at EU 
level,  through  workshops  on  the  role  of  the  EU  business sector  in  the  fight  against  wildlife 
trafficking and through direct contacts with business representatives. 

While  good  progress  has  been  made  in  many  relevant  sectors,  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  need  to  do  more.  Particular  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  online  trade  and 
courier companies, given the significant volume of trade in wildlife products (both legal and 
illegal)  operated  through  online  sites  and  transported  by  courier  or  mail  companies.  The 
Commission  will  also  build  on  the  current  cooperation  with  actors  such  as  ornamental  fish 
and exotic pet trade associations, to confirm commitments and obtain concrete results in the 
fight against illegal wildlife trade and to promote sustainable sourcing of wildlife products. 

The EU and its Member States have been very active in their efforts to make sure that intra-
EU trade and export of ivory items do not contribute to elephant poaching and illegal ivory 
trade.  In  line  with  action  2  of  the  Action  Plan,  in  May  2017,  the  Commission  adopted  a 
guidance  document5  recommending  that,  as  of  1 July 2017, EU  Member  States  stop  issuing 
export documents for raw ivory. In practical terms, this means that EU Member States have 
stopped  exporting  raw  ivory,  except  in  very  specific  situations,  such  as  for  scientific, 
enforcement or educational purposes. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  organised  a  public  consultation  from  15 September  to 
8 December 2017 to gather information and views on the extent, structure and main features 
of legal and illegal trade in ivory in and from the EU, as well as on the priorities that the EU 
should pursue in its approach against ivory trafficking6. The results of this consultation show 
a  lot  of  support  from  the  almost  90 000  respondents  for  tightening  the  current  EU  rules  on 
ivory trade. A large majority of respondents see this as a necessary step to avoid ivory items 
of legal and illegal origin being mixed, to prevent ivory items from being purchased in the EU 
and subsequently transported to third countries, where they would fuel the demand for illegal 
ivory items,  and to  assist  the work of enforcement agencies against ivory  trafficking.  Other 
respondents opposed further limits on elephant ivory trade to and from the EU, especially for 
antiques.  

5   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/guidance_ivory.pdf 
6   See link to the consultation and to the analysis of its responses here: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-ivory-trade-eu_en  

2 

 
                                                            
The EU market should not fuel demand for species that have been harvested illegally or 
unsustainably. This is why the EU, in close cooperation with range states, has been playing a 
proactive role in extending the scope of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species  of Wild  Fauna  and Flora (CITES) to  new species threatened by international trade, 
thereby awarding them international protection. This is especially the case for exotic pets, for 
which the EU is an important market, and for tropical timber and marine endangered species. 
The EU was a key player on this issue at the 17th Conference of the Parties (CoP17) to CITES 
in 2016 and is working actively in preparation for CoP18 in 2019.  

Promoting the role of local communities in wildlife protection has also been a priority for the 
EU  and  its  Member  States.  This  is  a  central  component  of  the  EU-funded  programmes  for 
biodiversity protection and against wildlife trafficking (see priority 3).  

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  have  played  a  pivotal  role  in  ensuring  that  corruption  is 
recognised  at  international  level  as  a  major  enabler  of  wildlife  trafficking.  A  CITES 
Resolution was adopted on this, based on a proposal by the EU, at CoP17. On the initiative of 
Germany,  high-level  principles  on  combating  corruption  linked  to  wildlife  trafficking  were 
also  endorsed  by  the  G20  in  July  2017.  Since  then,  the  EU  has  been  pushing,  particularly 
through  its  Delegations  in  third  countries,  for  concrete  action  against  corruption  linked  to 
wildlife trafficking.  

Priority 2 – Implementing and enforcing existing rules and combating organised 
wildlife crime more effectively  

The second priority of the Action Plan is to  make enforcement of EU rules against wildlife 
trafficking at EU and Member State level more effective.  

Significantly, in May 2017, the Council included environmental crime as a priority for the 
EU  Policy  Cycle  on  organised  crime  for  2018-2021.  The  Council  made  it  a  priority  to 
disrupt  organised  crime  groups  involved  in  environmental  crime,  more  particularly  wildlife 
and  illicit  waste  trafficking.  In  the  context  of  the  2018-2021  EU  Policy  Cycle,  the  Multi-
Annual  Strategic  Plan  (MASP)  on  Environmental  Crime,  agreed  upon  by  the  Commission 
and  the  Member  States,  was  adopted  in  September  2017.  It  describes  the  scope  of  the 
problem,  lists  the  existing  activities  and  policies  in  the  area  of  environmental  crime  and 
identifies existing and potential vulnerabilities. It also sets seven strategic goals under which 
the actors, types of measures and benefits of these measures are listed. These goals are: 

 

forming an intelligence picture; 

  operational activities; 

  prevention and capacity-building; 

  cooperation with non-EU partners; 

 

tackling document fraud; 

 

financial investigations; and 

  online trade in (il)licit goods and services. 

3 

 
The MASP is implemented through annual Operational Action Plans. This recognition should 
increase  the  mobilisation  and  operational  capacities  of  Europol  and  EU  Member  States’ 
enforcement agencies against environmental crime, and in particular wildlife trafficking. The 
Commission  also  adopted  in  January  2018  a  Communication  on  ‘EU  actions  to  improve 
environmental compliance and governance’7. One of these actions focusses on the preparation 
of a good practice guidance document on combatting environmental crime, with a particular 
emphasis on waste and wildlife offences. Measures related to training and better deployment 
of expertise on environmental compliance assurance are also relevant8.  

Strategic  enforcement  priorities  have  been  defined  at  EU  level  and  implemented  both 
nationally  and  through  cross-border  joint  actions,  notably  against  trafficking  of  ivory,  eels, 
reptiles  and  birds.  Major  cross-border  investigations  and  seizures  have  been  carried  out 
throughout  the  EU,  with  the  active  involvement  of  Europol,  Eurojust  and  many  law 
enforcement  agencies  from  different  Member  States  (see  Box  1).  The  mobilisation  of 
enforcement  agencies  against  wildlife  trafficking  has  increased  substantially  in  some 
Member States. Ensuring a level playing field across the whole EU and a strong enforcement 
response  from  all  Member  States  against  wildlife  trafficking  should  now  be  a  priority.  The 
reported  cases  of  successful  prosecutions  and  sanctions  linked  to  wildlife  trafficking  have 
involved document fraud, money laundering or organised crime, as well as asset recovery. It 
is  important,  however,  to  improve  the  judiciary’s  awareness  of  wildlife  trafficking,  as  the 
information  on  prosecutions  and  sanctions  in  this  area  remains  limited.  Little  progress  has 
been  reported  in  investigations  into  money  laundering  linked  to  wildlife  trafficking.  Many 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  have  observed  the  need  for  more  investigations  into  the 
online trade dimension of wildlife trafficking.   

Box 1 – Seizures of wildlife products in the EU in 2016 

In  2016,  the  competent  authorities  of  24  EU  Member  States  reported  to  the  European 
Commission a total of 2 268 significant seizures of wildlife commodities, 63 % of them at 
external EU borders. The main commodity groups seized at EU borders were medicinal 
products  (42 %),  ivory  (14 %),  corals  (10 %),  reptile  parts  and  derivatives  (7 %),  live 
reptiles  (5 %),  caviar  (4 %)  and  plants.  The  commodities  seized  on  import  mostly  came 
from China, the USA, Switzerland and Thailand, while most of the commodities seized on 
export were destined for China (including Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), the 
USA  and  Vietnam.  Most  of  the  seizures  were  made  at  airports,  with  more  of  the  seized 
commodities  having  been  transported  through  postal  or  fast  parcel  shipments  than  in 
previous years. 

More than two tonnes of ivory were seized in 2016. Most of this ivory was not destined for 
the EU market and consisted of items that were either in transit through European airports 
or  mail  centres  from  Africa  to  Asia,  or  about  to  be  re-exported  without  the  required 
documentation to Asia (mostly old ivory items).  

Eel trafficking currently represents one of the biggest challenges for the EU and its Member 
States  in  their  fight  against  wildlife  trafficking.  During  the  2016-17  fishing  season,  48 

7  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/pdf/COM_2018_10_F1_COMMUNICATION_FROM 

_COMMISSION_TO_INST_EN_V8_P1_959219.pdf  

8   For details on the individual actions under the Action Plan on Environmental Compliance and Governance, 

see Annex 1 to Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2018) 10 final.  

4 

 
                                                            
persons  were  arrested  and  4 000 kg  of  live  juvenile eels (glass  eels)  seized; the  eels  were 
intercepted  as  they  were  being  exported  to  Asia  and  their  total  value  was  approximately 
EUR 4  million9.  Investigations  by  Europol  and  some  EU  Member  States  point  to  the 
involvement of transnational organised crime networks in smuggling eels out of Europe. 

Most Member States reported that training courses had been carried out at national level by 
their  authorities,  with  an  increasing  number  of  courses  organised  jointly  with  different 
agencies  (customs,  police,  inspection  services,  CITES  management  authorities,  etc.).  Many 
training activities have also been organised at EU level, under the supervision of CEPOL10 or 
the  practitioners’  networks  working  on  environmental  crime.  EU-funded  environment  and 
police  cooperation  programmes  have  also  been  used  to  promote  training  of  enforcement 
officials to fight wildlife crime (see Box 2).  

Box 2 – Financial support for the fight against wildlife crime in the EU 

including 

the  development  of  new 

The  EU  is  funding  many  specific  projects  and  initiatives  against  wildlife  crime,  mainly 
from the LIFE programme11. LIFE is providing EUR 1.1 million for the ‘LIFE for Danube 
Sturgeons12’  project  (2016-2020),  which  aims  to  improve  enforcement  of  laws  and 
regulations against sturgeon poaching and illegal caviar trade in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia 
and Ukraine. LIFE also supports activities run by the European Network of Prosecutors for 
the  Environment  (ENPE), 
tools  on 
environmental  crime  for  prosecutors  and  judges  and  the  creation  of  a  database  of  good 
practices  (EUR 645 000  for  2015-2020).  Furthermore,  LIFE  provides  support  to  projects 
against the illegal killing of birds throughout the EU, primarily to foster the implementation 
of  the  EU  Roadmap  towards  eliminating  the  illegal  killing,  trapping  and  trade  of  birds13. 
The  recently  published  brochure  LIFE  &  Wildlife  Crime14  contains  comprehensive 
information on the initiatives supported by the LIFE programme against wildlife crime. 
In  November  2017,  the  first  targeted  call  for  proposals15  for  projects  aiming  to  boost 
Member  States’  operational  activities  on  environmental  crime,  including  via  training  and 
capacity-building activities for competent authorities, was launched under the EU Internal 
Security  Fund  —  Police  programme16,  with  an  overall  budget  of  EUR 2.5 million.  The 
fight against wildlife trafficking  is explicitly mentioned as  one  of the priorities under  this 
call. 

training 

Many Member States have established inter-agency cooperation platforms or task forces on 
wildlife  trafficking.  Spain  has  adopted  a  national  action  plan  against  wildlife  trafficking, 
modelled  on  the  EU  Action  Plan  and  setting  out  a  comprehensive  strategy  to  address  the 
problem. The Czech Republic also plans to adopt a similar national action plan by the end of 

9   https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/eu-law-enforcement-step-efforts-to-protect-environment-

%E2%80%93-48-arrested-for-trafficking-endangered-species  

10   European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training – https://www.cepol.europa.eu/  
11   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/  
12   https://danube-sturgeons.org/the-project/  
13   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/docs/Roadmap%20illegal%20killing.pdf 
14   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/nat.htm#wildlife  
15   http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/isfp/topics/isfp-2017-ag-env.html  
16   https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-security-

fund-police_en  

5 

 
                                                            
2018.  Despite  some  progress,  however,  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  between 
enforcement agencies remains a challenge in some Member States. Similarly, not all Member 
States  are  exchanging  information  with  other  Member  States  or  through  Europol.  Many 
Member  States  see  EU-TWIX  (see  Box  3)  as  a  practical  and  efficient  tool  for  exchanging 
information  on  wildlife  trafficking  (excluding  personal  data)  across  the  EU.  By  contrast, 
Member States’ use of the SIENA platform17 for exchanging messages on wildlife trafficking 
varies  greatly,  depending  on  the  authorities  concerned.  This  hampers  effective  cooperation 
and deprives Europol of precious information necessary to build a comprehensive intelligence 
picture of wildlife trafficking in the EU.  

Box 3 – EU-TWIX: a successful tool for enforcement cooperation in the EU 

EU-TWIX  is  a  European  enforcement  support  system  designed  to  facilitate  information 
exchange and international cooperation between wildlife law enforcement and management 
officials. It was created in 2005 on the initiative of the Belgian authorities and TRAFFIC18 
and  now  connects  more  than  1 000  officials  (e.g.  from  CITES  management  authorities, 
customs services, environmental inspection services, the police and the judiciary) from 37 
European countries and 10 international/regional organisations, with financial support from 
the European Commission and many Member States. 

Communication  through  the  EU-TWIX  mailing  list  has  triggered  several  cross-border 
investigations, including a large-scale investigation into a case involving illegal trading in 
birds  in  the  Netherlands,  with  connections  to  several  other  European  and  non-European 
countries.  Approximately  500  specimens  of  birds  were  seized,  as  well  as  money  and 
property. Three individuals received prison sentences.  

The EU-TWIX database currently holds over 55 000 wildlife-related seizure records from 
the  28  EU  Member  States  from  2000  onwards.  This  presents  a  unique  opportunity  for 
monitoring illegal wildlife trade trends at national and EU level.  

EU-TWIX has also inspired several similar systems worldwide, as detailed in the annex to 
this report. 

Priority 3 – Strengthening the global partnership of source, consumer and transit 
countries against wildlife trafficking  

Since the adoption of the Action Plan, the EU and its Member States have asserted their status 
as the biggest aid provider in the fight against wildlife trafficking (first donor). Many projects 
strive to implement the Action Plan by addressing key drivers and determinants of trafficking, 
particularly in areas such as environmental crime, corruption and the rule of law, insecurity 
due  to  armed  conflicts,  ecosystem  services  and  livelihoods  around  protected  areas, 
management of natural resources and resilience of local communities. 

The EU and many Member States have formed long-term partnerships with third countries to 
conserve  biodiversity  and  fight  wildlife  trafficking,  recognising  the  persistent  link  between 

17   The Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) is a communication platform for law 
enforcement agencies managed by Europol. https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/services-
support/information-exchange/secure-information-exchange-network-application-siena  

18   TRAFFIC is a civil society organisation working on wildlife trade issues. 

6 

 
                                                            
the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the destabilising  activities  of armed groups, 
particularly in Central Africa. The Action Plan has provided a significant boost in this area. In 
addition  to  pre-existing  financial  support  and  ongoing  activities,  further  significant 
additional  EU  funds  (around  EUR  340  million  in  Africa,  Asia  and  the  Pacific,  and  South 
America and the Caribbean) were mobilised in 2016 and 2017 under the EU development 
and cooperation policy.  

This  includes  regional  programmes  against  wildlife  crime  in  Central  and  Eastern  Africa,  as 
well as support for conservation in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and other 
specific  countries  (for  example  Guinea).  Under  the  Biodiversity  and  Protected  Areas 
Management (BIOPAMA) Partnership Programme, regional priorities in ACP countries also 
included capacity-building against wildlife crime. 

Box 4 – A new EU global programme on wildlife and forest crime 
The  EU  action  ‘Law  enforcement  and  combating  wildlife  and  forest  crime’,  adopted  in 
2017, will mobilise EUR 43.5 million to: 
-  boost the operational capacities of the International Consortium for Combating Wildlife 
Crime  (ICCWC)  to  improve  wildlife  and  forest  law  enforcement  in  targeted  countries 
and promote international coordination (EUR 13.5 million);  
support  civil  society  organisations  and  local  communities  in  preventing  and  fighting 
wildlife trafficking in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 

- 

This  complements  existing  regional  programmes  with  ICCWC  members,  in  particular  in 
Central  Africa  (UNODC),  East/Southern  Africa  (UNODC,  CITES),  Asia  (UNODC)  and 
through the global MIKE19 programme (CITES), totalling over EUR 40 million. 

Member States (notably France, Germany and the United Kingdom) have also been providing 
considerable  financial  support  to  national  and  regional  programmes  against  wildlife 
trafficking  through  their  development  cooperation  policies.  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands and the EU are contributing to the African Elephant Fund20. 

In  addition  to  providing  financial  support,  the  EU  has  been  actively  engaged  in  bilateral 
dialogues  on  wildlife  trafficking  with  a  number  of  relevant  source,  transit  and  market 
countries.  EU  Delegations  actively  promote  the  implementation  of  CITES  and  EU  wildlife 
trade regulations in third countries and provide technical support. The EU also uses its trade 
policy instruments to press for action against wildlife trafficking, e.g. through the inclusion of 
specific  provisions in  future  free  trade  agreements  (notably  with  Vietnam)  or  via  the  GSP+ 
scheme21.  Finally,  the  EU  has  fostered  dialogue  with  regional  organisations,  such  as 
ASEAN22 and the African Union, to better address illegal wildlife trade. 

A  number  of  Member  States  are  mobilising  their  diplomatic  networks  against  wildlife 
trafficking and the UK is planning a high-level conference on wildlife trafficking23 in October 
2018.  

19   Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants. See: https://cites.org/eng/prog/mike/index.php  
20  http://www.africanelephantfund.org/ 
21   Generalised Scheme of Preferences – http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-

regions/development/generalised-scheme-of-preferences/index_en.htm 

22   Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 
23   http://www.illegalwildlifetrade.net/2017/11/24/london-2018-illegal-wildlife-trade-conference-oct-10-11-2018/  

7 

 
                                                            
The EU has been equally proactive at the multilateral level, in particular in the context of 
CITES, which  is the main multilateral instrument against  wildlife trafficking  and which the 
EU also supports financially. At CoP17 and the 2017 Standing Committee meeting, the EU 
actively pushed for targeted recommendations and sanctions to help combat ivory, rhino horn, 
rosewood and tiger trafficking.  

Similarly, the EU and a number of Member States are active players in the discussions on the 
killing, trapping and trading of birds, for instance as part of the dedicated group of experts set 
up  under  the  Convention  on  the  Conservation  of  European  Wildlife  and  Natural  Habitats 
(Bern  Convention).  They  have  also  promoted  the  inclusion  of  wildlife  trafficking  on  the 
agendas of the United Nations, the G20, the G7 and other international bodies. More progress 
is needed to put wildlife trafficking on the agenda of other relevant international bodies and 
forums, such as the UN Convention against Corruption, the UN Convention on Transnational 
Organised Crime and the Financial Action Task Force. 

3. Conclusion 

The Action Plan has generated considerable political attention and support at EU level. One 
of its first positive effects has been to raise the profile of wildlife trafficking as a priority issue 
among a wide range of policy-makers, law enforcement agencies and stakeholders in the EU. 
This has resulted in the adoption of numerous initiatives at EU and national level to fulfil the 
objectives  of  the  Action  Plan.  It  has  also  had  numerous  other  positive  results:  more 
enforcement  measures  in  the  EU;  commitments  from  actors  in  the  private  sector  to  help 
combat  wildlife  trafficking;  a  ban  on  the  export  of  raw  ivory;  strong  proposals  by  the  EU 
against  wildlife  trafficking  in  multilateral  forums  (notably  under  CITES);  increased  EU 
funding  for  capacity-building  and  international  action  against  wildlife  trafficking;  and  the 
mobilisation of EU and Member States’ diplomatic networks in many third countries against 
this problem.   

Overall,  good  progress  has  been  made  on  most  of  the  32  actions  in  the  Action  Plan. 
Ultimately,  the  best  indicators  for  assessing  its  impact  are  poaching  and  trafficking  levels. 
Despite some encouraging signs (particularly a decrease in poaching levels for elephants and 
rhinoceros in recent years), wildlife trafficking continues to thrive and pose a serious threat to 
biodiversity, the rule of law and sustainable development. There is therefore no doubt that the 
priorities and objectives set out in the Action Plan remain appropriate and relevant.  

The EU and its Member States should further intensify their efforts to reach the objectives of 
the  Action  Plan  by  2020,  when  the  need  for  further  action  will  be  assessed.  This  is  also 
relevant for meeting target 15.7 of Sustainable Development Goal 15, which calls for ‘urgent 
action  to  end  poaching  and  trafficking  of  protected  species  of  flora  and  fauna  and  address 
both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products’24. 

24 

 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg15  

8