COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document 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 SWD(2018) 452 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT   Progress report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking {COM(2018) 711 final}  
 
 
Introduction 

The present Commission staff working document complements the progress report by the 
Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  against  Wildlife  Trafficking  (the 
“Action  Plan”).  It  presents  a  summary  of  the  actions  taken  at  the  EU  and  Member  States 
levels  since  2016  in  relation  to  the  three  priorities  of  the  Action  Plan,  as  well  as,  where 
relevant,  the  additional  measures  planned  to  attain  the  objectives  related  to  those 
priorities. This report draws, inter alia, from the contributions received from 25 EU Member 
States1, Europol, Eurojust, IMPEL2, ENPE3 and EUFJE4 on the implementation of the Action 
Plan. The contributions from the Member States are available online5.  

IMPEL is the EU Network for Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law – see https://www.impel.eu/.  

1   Out of 28 MS, only Ireland, Malta and Portugal did not submit contributions. 
2  
3   European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment – see https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/. 
4   European Forum of Judges for the Environment – see https://www.eufje.org/index.php/en/.  
5   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, in recognition that combating wildlife trafficking can only 
be successful if its underlying drivers are addressed.  

Objective 1.1 - Reduce the demand for and supply of illegal wildlife products  

Action 1  
Increase support for 
awareness-raising and 
targeted demand 
reduction campaigns in 
the EU and worldwide 

Many EU Member States carried out awareness-raising and information 
campaigns focused on illegal trade in wildlife products. Some of these 
campaigns were directed to the general public, taking place online, at 
airports, zoological gardens, schools or universities. Targeted actions 
were also organised towards the pet industry, the transport sector or 
the musical instruments sector as a follow-up to decisions agreed at the 
17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2016. 
Member State also carried out targeted actions, such as campaigns 
directed to the Vietnamese community (Czech Republic) or relating to 
sturgeon and illegal trade in caviar (Bulgaria). France and the 
Netherlands are currently developing special applications for mobile 
devices to inform travellers about protected plants and animals. In 
addition, most Member States convey news regarding enforcement 
actions through a variety of media, including official websites and social 
media.  

The Commission has collected and shared amongst all Member States 
examples of awareness raising and demand reduction actions carried 
out by individual Member States.  

The EU and its Member States have also been supporting programmes 
against wildlife trafficking in third countries, which encompass actions 
targeted at demand reduction in destination countries on the Asian 
continent. This is the case for example of an EU-funded programme 
carried out by civil society organisations in conjunction with the Chinese 
authorities of EUR 1 million and focusing on demand reduction, 
particularly targeting pangolins and rosewood.  This project will focus 
on the reduction of demand for illegally sourced rosewood and 
pangolin through market and consumer studies in the first year 
focussing on these two species to understand better where and why 
the demand exists. They will form the basis of the campaigns that will 
be developed. The project will also engage with various sectors that are 
linked to consumption of these goods, such as the tourism sector, e-
business, craft and collection industries etc. to inform consumers, 
travellers and others that make use of these sectors. A third part will 
focus on the efforts of NGOs and Government to raise awareness 
among Chinese in Africa with a focus on rosewood. Finally the project 
will provide reviews of the current laws existing in China regarding both 
species and provide recommendations on these laws.  

A number of EU Member States also have been providing financial 
support to demand-reduction programmes in Asian countries, notably 
in Vietnam (Germany, United Kingdom). 

Action 2  
Further limit trade in 
ivory within and from 

Limiting ivory trade in and from the EU to avoid that it fuels demand for 
illegal ivory is a priority for the EU. Intra-EU trade and the re-export of 
ivory for commercial purposes are already very strictly regulated: only 

2 

 
 
the EU 

Action 3  
Reduce or ban 
unsustainable imports 
into the EU of 
endangered species by 
proposing their listing 
in CITES Appendices 
(e.g. rare reptile 
species) 

old ivory items can be traded in the EU or exported outside the EU, 
under strict supervision by the national competent authorities from the 
EU Member States. In addition, as foreseen in the Action Plan, the 
Commission adopted in May 2017 a guidance document6 
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 all export of raw ivory, except for very 
specific situations, such as for scientific, enforcement or educational 
purposes.  

For the rest of ivory trade authorised under EU law, the Commission 
guidance document provides detailed recommendations so that the EU 
Member States exercise high scrutiny on each transaction and only 
allow trade to happen for legal ivory items. Enforcement actions against 
illegal ivory trade in the EU have also been considerably reinforced.  

In addition, in order to ensure that legal ivory trade in or from the EU 
does not contribute to elephant poaching or illegal ivory trade, the 
Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, has been 
investigating the main features of legal and illegal ivory trade in, from 
and to the EU. A public consultation was also conducted from 15 
September to 8 December 2017 to compile 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 follow 
in its approach against ivory trafficking7. 

In order to avoid that the EU market is used to import wildlife species 
of unsustainable or illegal origin, the Action Plan also calls for the EU to 
be proactive in submitting proposals for inclusion in CITES Appendices 
of species sought after in the EU. In line with this objective, the EU 
successfully proposed at the 17th Conference of the Parties to CITES in 
2016 to extend the CITES protection to a number of species imported 
into the EU, notably as pets.  This was the case for the Barbary 
macaque, the African grey parrot and a number of gecko, lizard and 
ornamental fish species threatened by international trade.  In total, the 
EU tabled a record number of proposals at CITES CoP17, in close 
cooperation with the countries of origin, resulting in the award of 
enhanced international protection for many species traded to the EU 
and in the rest of the world. The EU and its Member States will pursue 
this approach in view of the next CITES CoP, which will take place in 
May 2019. 

In addition, the EU monitors regularly the sustainability of import of 
CITES-listed species into its territory, through the activities of the 
Scientific Review Group (SRG), which gathers scientific experts from all 
the EU Member States. The SRG scrutinises such imports. In cases 
where there is insufficient information on their sustainability and after 
consultation with the exporting country, the Commission, based on the 
advice by the SRG, can decide on suspensions of trade into the EU for 

6   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/guidance_ivory.pdf 
7   See the consultation and the analysis of its responses at https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-

ivory-trade-eu_en  

3 

 
                                                            
 
 
specific species8. 

The Partnership Instrument project “Enhancing cooperation with 
Indonesia on trade in wildlife products” contributes to ensuring that 
imports of wildlife products take place in compliance with EU Wildlife 
Trade Regulations, as it will support Indonesia as one of the largest 
suppliers of wildlife products to Europe to sustainably manage its 
natural resources and biodiversity in line with CITES. 

Objective 1.2 - Ensure that rural communities in source countries are engaged in and 
benefit from wildlife conservation 
Action 4 
Strengthen 
engagement of rural 
communities in the 
management and 
conservation of wildlife  

Supporting relevant activities of rural communities is a cornerstone of 
the EU approach to biodiversity protection and in the fight against 
wildlife trafficking. The EU is providing considerable financial support to 
programmes designed to build capacities of rural communities to 
sustainably manage their natural resources and develop alternative 
livelihoods to avoid wildlife consumption in and around protected 
areas. This is the case for example in the landscapes around the 
Garamba, Salonga, and Virunga national parks, in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, which have been receiving financial support 
from the EU for many years. Some other EU-funded programmes, 
notably in Eastern and Southern Africa, aim to improve law 
enforcement against illegal wildlife trade by strengthening local 
community support and participation, especially in transboundary 
conservation areas and ecosystems. The Northern Rangelands Trust, 
working with the International Fund for Animal Welfare on its Ten 
Boma initiative, is an example of an organisation that will receive 
significant financial support from the European Commission to 
implement actions that aim to achieve such objectives in Kenya. The EU 
is also actively participating in the multilateral discussions on the 
involvement of rural communities in the implementation of the CITES 
Convention.  

and 

Action 5 
Support the 
development of 
sustainable and 
alternative livelihoods 
for communities living 
in and adjacent to 
wildlife habitats 

A number of Member States (11) also reported on specific actions taken 
to strengthen the engagement of rural communities in wildlife 
conservation. In most cases, this support takes the form of financial 
support to community-led programmes to reduce wildlife trafficking. 
This is the case of the International Union for Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN) “Horn of Africa Wildlife Crime Prevention Programme”, to which 
the Netherlands contributes financially.  The development of local 
communities is also at the heart of 47 “Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge 
Fund” projects financed by the United Kingdom with an amount of £26 
million. Another example is the RESSOURCE project, funded by the 
French authorities, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the 
EU. This project aims at empowering local African communities, notably 
in Senegal, Chad, Mali, Egypt and Sudan, with the tools and knowledge 
to contribute to sustainable management of water birds. 

8   See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1508765426547&uri=CELEX:32017R1915  

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
Objective 1.3 – Increase business sector engagement in efforts to combat wildlife 
trafficking and encourage sustainable sourcing of wildlife products 
Action 6 
Raise awareness of 
business sectors trading 
in wildlife products 
within/from the EU or 
facilitating such trade 

The Commission organised a conference on this topic on 8 February 
2017, with a specific focus on the transport sector and the exotic pet 
industry. Air transport organisations and courier companies 
participated in technical sessions of the EU Enforcement Group, which 
gathers enforcement agencies from all EU Member States, Europol, 
Interpol, the CITES Secretariat, the World Customs Organisation and 
Eurojust9, at a meeting on 13 June 2017. The Commission also reached 
out extensively to companies, organisations and federations active in 
other important sectors, such online trade, air transport, zoos and 
aquaria, pet trade, breeders, hunting, eel fishing and trade, timber, 
musical instruments and antiques.  

and  

Action 7 
Support private-sector 
initiatives to curb the 
illegal wildlife trade and 
encourage sustainable 
sourcing of wildlife 
products in/from the 
EU 

Similar initiatives were adopted at the national level by a large number 
of Member States. As an example, the French customs reported that 
they hold regular meetings on wildlife trafficking at Roissy Charles de 
Gaulle airport with the French national airline, the airport management 
and freight operators. The deliverables for such workshops include the 
production of leaflets for passengers in departing lounges regarding 
wildlife trafficking, staff training on how to spot and detect wildlife 
smuggling and exchange of data regarding previous significant cases at 
the airport in order to share information about recurring patterns of 
wildlife smuggling (such as bush meat and small consignments in 
express freight, etc.). 

These contacts considerably helped raise the awareness of the private 
sector on the extent and features of wildlife trafficking in the EU, while 
the issue had previously often been viewed as a problem affecting 
Africa and Asia rather than Europe.  

As a response, several European companies adopted a series of 
measures and commitments. A number of European airline companies 
joined the United for Wildlife Transport Task Force10. Experience shows 
that the most relevant areas for engagement by the business sector are 
(i) sensitising their consumers on wildlife trafficking and the need to 
obey by the rules, (ii) training staff to detect instances of illegal trade in 
wildlife products and to report about it according to clear protocols and 
(iii) increase cooperation with enforcement agencies, notably in the 
sharing of information.  

While good progress has been observed in many sectors of relevance to 
wildlife trafficking in the EU, more needs to be done and the 
Commission and the Member States will pursue efforts in that 
direction. Particular focus should be given to the online trade and 
courier sector companies in view of the important 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 other sectors, in particular the 
ornamental fish and exotic pet organisations, to obtain concrete results 
against illegal wildlife trade and for the promotion of sustainable 
sourcing of wildlife products. 

9   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/eg_en.htm  
10   Notably Air France, KLM and TAP – see https://www.unitedforwildlife.org/  

5 

 
                                                            
 
Objective 1.4 -  Tackle corruption associated with wildlife trafficking 
Action 8 
Support initiatives to 
fight the corruption 
associated with wildlife 
trafficking at national, 
regional and 
international levels 

At the 17th Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention in 2016 
the European Union successfully introduced a dedicated Resolution 
against corruption facilitating wildlife trafficking11. This Resolution sets 
out clearly, for the first time, that corruption plays a major role in the 
current wildlife trafficking crisis, calls on CITES Parties to adopt targeted 
actions to address this problem and provides a mandate to CITES bodies 
to hold Parties accountable for instances of corruption affecting the 
implementation or enforcement of CITES. In line with this mandate, the 
CITES Secretariat reported at the last CITES Standing Committee 
meeting in November 2017 on allegations of suspicious transactions by 
some Parties, prompting the Standing Committee to investigate further 
these cases. In July 2017, the EU also actively supported the adoption 
by the G20 of High Level Principles against corruption linked to wildlife 
trafficking and will work on their implementation, notably as part of the 
G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group co-chaired by Argentina and 
France. In May 2018, the UK and France co-hosted a side event on 
illegal wildlife trade and corruption with the United Nations Office on 
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) at the 27th session of the UN Commission on 
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. 

In operational terms, the EU is financing a number of programmes 
designed to reinforce the enforcement and judiciary capacities of 
developing countries against wildlife trafficking, which includes 
addressing wildlife-related corruption. EU Delegations in third countries 
also work closely with anti-corruption agencies and civil society 
organisations12 on the follow-up of concrete wildlife trafficking cases, to 
make sure that efforts by enforcement and judiciary authorities are not 
hampered by corruption. This approach is pursued as part of the EU 
overarching policy in support of environmental protection and the rule 
of law.  

In addition to the initiatives above, the EU and its Member States 
should endeavour to raise the issue of wildlife trafficking to a more 
prominent level with the UN Convention Against Corruption.   

11   https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-17-06.pdf  
12   Notably the EAGLE network, see http://www.eagle-enforcement.org/.  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
PRIORITY 2: Making implementation and enforcement of existing rules and 
the fight against organised wildlife crime more effective 

Objective 2.1 – Ensure more even implementation of EU rules on the wildlife trade and 
develop a more strategic approach to checks and the enforcement of rules against 
wildlife trafficking at EU level  
Action 9  
Develop strategies to 
improve compliance 
with EU wildlife 
legislation at national 
level 

To meet this objective, the Action Plan recommends the adoption of 
strategies to improve compliance with EU legislation. In that respect, 
some Member States have formulated national strategic plans (in 
particular Germany, Slovenia and Spain), or set up taskforces/working 
groups to investigate gaps between EU wildlife legislation and national 
laws (Austria, Belgium, Hungary and the Netherlands). A few Member 
States plan to update their legislation and strengthen national 
authorities’ capacity to fight wildlife crime (Austria, Poland and Spain). 
For example, Austria intends to revise its national Species Trade Act by 
2019-2020 to ensure full implementation of the EU Action Plan. 

At the EU level, the Commission exercises regular scrutiny on the 
implementation by the Member States of the EU rules on wildlife trade. 
Member States have to report every year on trade in CITES-listed 
specimens and seizures, as well as on the measures taken to implement 
their obligations under CITES and the EU wildlife trade regulations every 
three years. The information provided in these reports is reviewed by 
the Commission to assess possible shortcomings in the implementation 
of the EU wildlife trade framework. Where necessary, the Commission 
communicates directly with the Member States about such 
shortcomings, requesting them to provide the required clarifications. In 
addition to reporting, compliance is assured through meetings held 
each year with the national authorities of the EU Member States in 
charge of the management (4 meetings/year), scientific (4 
meetings/year) and enforcement (2 meetings/year) aspects of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 338/97. These meetings are the occasion for 
Member States to exchange information on their challenges and 
experiences, develop common solutions and eventually ensure that 
they all implement the rules in a harmonised manner. Specific trainings 
linked to the implementation of the wildlife rules are regularly 
organised back to back with the official meetings (especially for the 
scientific authorities). Where necessary, guidance documents are 
developed by the Commission in cooperation with the EU Member 
States to ensure a common interpretation of the EU wildlife trade rules 
(cf. recent guidance documents on trade in rhinoceros, ivory and 
"worked specimens"). The implementation of the wildlife trade 
regulations will be included in the next Environment Implementation 
Review13 exercise.  

The EU has been working proactively to ensure that hunting trophies of 
CITES-listed species to be imported into the EU come from sustainable 
and legal sources. The EU successfully tabled at CITES CoP17 in 
November 2016 a proposal for a Resolution, which for the first time 
sets out globally-agreed principles that should be followed to ensure 
the legality and sustainability of trade in hunting trophies of CITES-listed 
species. The Resolution also stresses the importance that trade in 

13   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm  

7 

 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 10 
Improve rate of 
detection of illegal 
activities 

Action 11 
Step up efforts to 
ensure implementation 
of the EU roadmap 
towards eliminating the 
illegal killing, trapping 
and trade of birds 

hunting trophies provides benefits to local communities. The EU and its 
Member States are promoting the implementation of this Resolution, 
notably through a specific project on large carnivore sustainable trophy 
hunting in Zambia and the organisation of a workshop on trophy 
hunting in Sevilla in April 2018 with experts and range States from 
Southern Africa. The Scientific Review Group (SRG) is also scrutinising 
the sustainability of import of hunting trophies into the EU and three 
SRG experts carried a specific mission to Tanzania to work with the 
authorities and stakeholders on the sustainability and legality of 
hunting trophies of lions and elephants. 

Improving rate of detection of illegal activities is essential to reach the 
objectives of the Action Plan. In addition to checks at border-crossing 
points, competent national and local authorities have established 
regular control on traders, breeders and keepers (Lithuania, Germany, 
Czech Republic, Croatia, France and Slovakia). Belgium reported on an 
increase in the number of inspectors tasked with the enforcement of 
CITES rules. The publication of national guidelines, either general or 
specific, has proved useful in assisting enforcement officers during 
checks, notably with identifying protected species (Austria, Greece, 
Italy). Furthermore, in some Member States, enforcement agencies, 
especially custom officers, receive specific training to develop 
knowledge of EU wildlife regulations and increase effectiveness of its 
enforcement (Finland, Germany and Sweden). In the Netherlands, 
sniffer dogs are trained on CITES species and derived products.  

With its Roadmap towards eliminating the illegal killing, trapping and 
trade of birds14, the Commission aims to support the Tunis Action Plan 
2013-2020 for the eradication of illegal killing, trapping and trade of 
wild birds of the Bern Convention which represents the main working 
programme at Pan-European level to address this problem. 
At the EU level, the Commission's efforts mainly concentrate on three 
aspects: (1) keeping an overview of all on-going activities to foster 
implementation of the main relevant actions, (2) taking care of the 
correct implementation of the Birds Directive by Member States and (3) 
financing some key initiatives. (1) The Commission convenes, once a 
year, a meeting of the main organizations active in fighting illegal killing, 
trapping and trade of birds to take stock of on-going initiatives and to 
facilitate co-ordination between those organizations.    
(2) In addition to enforcement action, the Commission is developing 
complementary ways to foster good implementation of the Birds 
Directive. Bilateral dialogues with Member States are envisaged in the 
context of the Action Plan for nature, people and the economy15 and 
the Environmental Implementation Review16 (Action 5 of the Action 
Plan), as well as other supporting mechanisms. These aim to strengthen 
compliance in the Member States on all aspects related to 
implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, including illegal 
bird-related issues where such significant activities are reported.  
Actions under the Action Plan on environmental compliance and 

14   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/docs/Roadmap%20illegal%20killing.pdf  
15   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/action_plan/index_en.htm   
16   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm  

8 

 
                                                            
 
 
governance are aimed, inter alia, at improving enforcement against 
illegal killing of birds17. 
(3) The Commission is financing several initiatives. This includes an 
intergovernmental Task Force on Illegal Killing, Taking and Trade of 
Migratory Birds in the Mediterranean18, which was established under 
the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The Task Force aims to 
fight illegal trapping activities in the Mediterranean, which – according 
to the available knowledge – is a hotspot for illegal killing and trapping 
of birds. Germany is financing a position in the CMS to support its 
activities against the illegal killing of birds. The Commission also 
financially supports activities of IMPEL on bird-related problems, which 
includes the establishment of a real-time communication tool for 
information exchange and cooperation between enforcement officials, 
national authorities and (inter)national and regional organisations of 
stakeholders19.  
Finally, the Commission produced a publication (“LIFE & Wildlife 
Crime”)20 which summarises actions taken under the EU LIFE 
programme and directly relevant to the EU Roadmap. One example 
includes the LIFE Nature VENENO NO Project on the fight against illegal 
poison use in the natural environment in Spain21.  
In a complementary manner, Member States have taken concrete steps 
to ensure compliance with the EU roadmap. German competent 
authorities, for instance, have been monitoring the illegal killing, 
trapping and trading of birds of prey in the context of the “EDGAR” 
project22. A few Member States have reported on collecting and 
gathering information on bird-related crimes, via either formal or 
informal knowledge base systems (France, Slovakia). As another 
example of European coordinated action to ensure protection of bird 
against illegal killing, trapping and trading, the Pannon Eagle LIFE 
Project23 focuses on the protection of the Eastern Imperial Eagle 
(Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, and Serbia).  

Defining and assessing priority risks forms part of the enforcement 
strategies of some EU Member States (Latvia, Slovenia and the United 
Kingdom). Risk profiles are also developed based on EU-TWIX24 or Risk 
Information Form data.  

With regard to cooperation within the EU, Member States reported on 
their experience through the EU Enforcement Group, IMPEL, as well as 
EnviCrimeNet, which connects Member States’ police and other 
enforcement officers, to improve the results and efficiency of 
investigations (Austria, France and Slovakia). The increasing role of 
Europol in addressing cross-border wildlife trade was also 
acknowledged by many Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden). 

Action 12 
Define and assess 
priority risks regularly 

17   See for details COM (2018) 10 and SWD (2018) 10.  
18    http://www.cms.int/en/taskforce/mikt  
19   https://www.impel-esix.eu/impel-esix-tool/  
20   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/nat.htm#wildlife  
21   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3573#BE

NEF  

22   http://www.greifvogelverfolgung.de/  
23   https://rm.coe.int/brief-summary-of-the-pannon-eagle-life-project-goals/1680730d25  
24   https://www.eu-twix.org/  

9 

 
                                                            
 
The EU Member States, the Commission and Europol agreed, within the 
Enforcement Group, on a few priority target species and trade routes. 
Dedicated working groups were created within Enforcement Group on 
these activities, which have also been included in Europol’s activities. 

Action 13 
Improve cooperation 
among Member States 
on cases of cross-
border wildlife 
trafficking 

The activities of Europol and Eurojust linked to wildlife trafficking have 
increased since the adoption of the Action Plan. To support the 
implementation of the EU Policy Cycle for serious international and 
organised crime (the priority "environmental crime" includes wildlife 
trafficking), the Commission provided financial support to Member 
States' activities with an amount of EUR 4 million/year for 2017 and 
2018.  

Many Member States and Europol participated in cross-border 
operational actions, such as operations LAKE and ABAIA on illegal trade 
in eels25, operation TEMBO on the control of export of wildlife 
commodities in courier/postal parcel shipments, or operation SUZAKU 
on illegal trade in birds26.  

Since 2016, Eurojust has been confronted with eight cases of illicit 
wildlife trafficking, half of them being multilateral. In most instances, 
Eurojust improved collaboration among competent judicial bodies by 
setting up coordination centres and coordination meetings. In cross-
border cases, arrangements with Europol were made to establish 
informal working contacts and, thus, support investigations of 
environmental crime. With respect to the European Multidisciplinary 
Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT), the Swedish police 
developed an operational action plan (OAP) to strengthen the 
cooperation with the other Nordic countries. 

The Commission is currently reviewing Member States’ policies and 
legislation on environmental crime. A report highlighting the main 
trends and practices throughout the EU is in preparation. In that report, 
the Commission shall review and identify the merits of EU legislation on 
environmental crime (Directive 2008/99). 

Action 14 
Review the EU policy 
and legislative 
framework on 
environmental crime in 
line with the European 
Agenda on Security 

25  https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/eu-law-enforcement-step-efforts-to-protect-environment-–-48-

arrested-for-trafficking-endangered-species  

26   https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/illegal-trade-in-endangered-species-29-arrests-and-over-2000-

animals-seized-in-international-operation-sukazu  

10 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
Objective 2.2 - Increase capacity to combat wildlife trafficking of all parts of enforcement 
chain and the judiciary  

Action 15 
Improve cooperation, 
coordination, 
communication and data 
flow between the 
enforcement agencies 
responsible in the 
Member States 

Most Member states have put in place coordination mechanisms, or are 
working on their establishment, to ensure cooperation between all 
relevant agencies competent to address wildlife trafficking at the national 
level (police, customs, CITES authorities, inspection services, veterinary 
services etc.).  

This cooperation takes place through meetings between responsible 
authorities at the national level (annual, twice a year or ‘regularly’), or via 
the establishment of dedicated task forces or Memoranda of 
Understanding.  In the Netherlands, for example, all government 
authorities involved in CITES enforcement determine, on an annual basis, 
clear priorities based on an "intervention strategy". A few Member States 
(notably the United Kingdom) have presented their experience of intra-
agency cooperation at meetings of the EU Enforcement Group. The Action 
Plan has been presented to EU Member States customs and law 
enforcement expert groups, in order to emphasise the importance of a 
multidisciplinary approach to steer its implementation.  

Many Member States have also developed procedures on how to handle 
wildlife trade offences along the whole enforcement chain (e.g. Austria, 
Czech Republic, Germany, France), domestically and/or in cooperation 
with other European and non-European states (e.g. UK cooperation with 
African countries). Initiatives have also been taken to reinforce 
cooperation between CITES enforcement agencies and scientific 
laboratories.  

Despite some progress, the cooperation and exchange of information 
between enforcement agencies remain a challenge in a number of EU 
Member States, as well as between EU Member States. Some Member 
States reported that the exchange of information between national 
agencies occurs on an ad hoc basis or is facilitated through electronic 
platforms. It is not clear however if this is sufficient to overcome 
structural or regulatory obstacles often preventing an efficient 
information sharing system.   

At the EU level, many enforcement agencies in EU Member States use the 
EU-TWIX platform and Member States are increasingly forwarding 
information to Europol via the SIENA system on wildlife trafficking cases 
linked to organised crime or with a cross-border dimension, although this 
could be done more systematically.  

Action 16 
Improve knowledge 
base on checks, 
investigations, 
prosecutions and judicial 
proceedings against 
wildlife trafficking 

As agreed in the CITES context in 2016, all Member States reported on 
their seizures of wildlife products to the CITES Secretariat for the first time 
in 2017. These data have been shared with UNODC and other 
international agencies for analytical purposes. In addition, an overview of 
significant wildlife products seizures continues to be published every year 
at the EU level27.  

A database on case law on environmental crime in the EU, including 
wildlife trafficking, has been developed by ENPE28. The challenge is now to 

27   For the 2016 exercise, see 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/reports/2016_overview_significant_seizures.pdf  

28   https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/node/57 

11 

 
                                                            
 
Action 17 
Step up training for all 
parts of the 
enforcement chain, 
including joint training 
activities 

have it populated with examples from all EU Member States and 
determine if it could be accessed more broadly, as it is currently limited 
mainly to prosecutors.  

The information on prosecutions and judicial penalties linked to wildlife 
trafficking at the EU level remains scattered.  All CITES Parties will have to 
report (the first time by 31 October 2018) on these issues as part of the 
newly agreed “CITES implementation report” and Member States are 
encouraged to reach out to their respective judicial authorities to ensure 
that the information compiled is as complete as possible.  

In 2017, the Commission launched a study on the availability, 
comparability and consistency of administrative statistical data on 
recorded crime and on the stages of the criminal justice process in the EU, 
to look into the availability of statistics in different crime areas (including 
in relation to trade or possession of protected or prohibited species of 
fauna and flora). The first results of this study should be available in 2019. 

Providing training to enforcement agencies is a priority for all Member 
States, to increase their capacity to combat wildlife trafficking. Twenty 
Member States reported to have implemented and support various types 
of trainings for CITES management and enforcement authorities, either in 
their country or abroad. In some instances, trainings on wildlife trafficking 
have been integrated within general curricula on criminal activities, 
notably in police academies (Czech Republic and Finland).  
Trainings typically target enforcement authorities, especially inspectors, 
custom officers and police units. More and more training activities are 
carried out jointly with the participation of different agencies, which is a 
way to promote a coordinated approach to combating wildlife trafficking 
(e.g. Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Latvia).  In the Netherlands, a 
national CITES Day is organised every year, which provides an opportunity 
for all agents involved in CITES and combating wildlife trafficking, 
including prosecutors, to gather, get to know each other and exchange 
best practices.  
As well, the Dutch Operation Pangolin succeeded in bringing together all 
enforcement authorities for a campaign against illegal trade of protected 
plants and animals. 
Several Member States (Austria and Belgium) stressed the importance to 
extend and ensure training for the judiciary, notably through joint training 
with other authorities. 
In April 2016, the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) 
organised a webinar with the aim of raising awareness on wildlife 
trafficking among law enforcement officers. In February 2017, CEPOL in 
cooperation with Spain provided training to law enforcement officials 
involved in combatting and investigating wildlife trafficking, aimed at 
improving knowledge and cooperation on preventing and investigating 
wildlife trafficking. For 2018, CEPOL is planning one specially designated 
activity on wildlife trafficking and one on environmental crimes more 
broadly.  
Further work on identification of training needs for compliance assurance 
officers and designing of training materials will be undertaken under the 

12 

 
Action 18 
Strengthen or, where 
applicable, establish 
practitioner networks at 
national and regional 
level, and improve 
cooperation between 
them 

Action Plan on Environmental Compliance and Governance29. 

In November 2017, a targeted call for proposals for funding projects 
aiming to boost operational cooperation between the Member States on 
environmental crime was launched under the EU Internal Security Fund- 
Police programme, with an overall budget of EUR 2.5 million.  
A number of projects financed under the EU LIFE programme30 also 
contain a component on training against environmental crime. This is the 
case notably of the project “LIFE for Danube Sturgeons31”, which aims at 
improving enforcement of laws and regulations against sturgeon poaching 
in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. The LIFE programme also 
supports the activities of ENPE32. Additional support under the LIFE 
programme could also made available in the future, as wildlife trafficking 
is explicitly mentioned as a relevant area for future projects to be funded 
under the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2018-2020 (under the 
section on “Environmental compliance assurance”)33. 
Little information was provided by Member States on the establishment 
of wildlife enforcement practitioner networks at regional and national 
levels.  

At the EU level, networks of environmental inspectors, prosecutors, 
judges and enforcement agencies reported on a large array of initiatives 
launched since the adoption of the Action Plan.  

ENPE, through its working group on wildlife crime, worked on data 
gathering and awareness raising on judicial cooperation and prosecutions 
of wildlife crimes in Europe, through activities such as the establishment 
of a database on environmental crime case law and specific trainings for 
prosecutors.  

In the same vein, the EU Forum for Judges for the Environment organised 
several workshops and events of relevance to wildlife trafficking, 
especially in relation to the illegal killing, trapping and trade of wild birds.  

IMPEL has been running a project on hunting tourism34 and a project to 
contribute to the elimination of illegal killing of birds35. This project 
includes the establishment of IMPEL-ESIX, a real-time communication tool 
for information exchange and cooperation in the area of nature 
conservation issues between enforcement officials, national authorities 
and (inter-)national and regional stakeholder organisations. IMPEL is 
planning to run in 2018 a project to improve the circulation of information 
and intelligence (types of criminal activities, seizures, etc.) on different 
types of illegal activities (e.g. related to birds and to timber). 36  
Joint meetings of these EU networks have been organised every year to 
allow the sharing of information and best practices on the investigations, 

29   See for details Annex 1 to SWD (2018) 10, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/pdf/SWD_2018_10_F1_OTHER_STAFF_WORKING_PAPER_EN_V5_P1_959220.
pdf   

30   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/  
31   https://danube-sturgeons.org/the-project/  
32   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5353  
33   See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1518531793134&uri=CELEX:32018D0210  
34   https://www.impel.eu/projects/hunting-tourism/  
35   Available at https://www.impel.eu/projects/contributing-elimination-illegal-killing-birds/  
36   https://www.impel.eu/projects/good-practices-in-the-implementation-of-the-eu-action-plan-against-wildlife-

trafficking/  

13 

 
                                                            
 
Action 19 

Improve care of seized 
or confiscated live 
animals or plants 

prosecutions and sanctioning of environmental cases, with the latest one 
taking place in Oxford in September 2017.  

One important challenge for these networks is to consolidate and expand 
their membership to reach out to an even wider range of practitioners. 

Improving the care of seized and confiscated live animals and plants 
remains a challenge for many Member States. France reported on its plan 
to establish a new quarantine centre for seized live animals at Roissy-
Charles De Gaulle airport. Hungary reported on the adoption of guidance 
to authorities on how to license rescue centres, with the subsequent 
licensing of several rescue centres taking place in 2017. Hungary also 
reported on their cooperation with the World Parrot Trust on a project to 
re-introduce confiscated African grey parrots to Tanzania. Specific 
workshops were also organised to train enforcement officers for better 
care of specimens and raise awareness on this subject matter (Germany). 

Objective 2.3 - Fighting organised crime more effectively 

Action 20 

Regularly assess the 
threat posed by 
organised wildlife 
trafficking in the EU 

Action 21 

Boost capacity of 
relevant experts to 
tackle the links of 
wildlife trafficking with 
organised crime, 
including cybercrime 
and related illicit 
financial flows 

An important development occurred with the EU Ministers for Justice and 
Home Affairs deciding for the first time to include environmental crime as 
a priority under the “EU Policy Cycle on serious and organised crime”, for 
the period 2018-2021. Wildlife trafficking is singled out as a specific 
priority in that context. This means that more resources will be devoted to 
addressing wildlife crime in the EU and that Europol and enforcement 
agencies in the Member States will increase further their action in that 
field. The actions foreseen under this priority are spelled out in a Multi 
Annual Strategic Plan37 and through annual Operational Action Plans 
(OAPs). The OAP for 2018 includes 17 concrete operational actions. 

The Europol SOCTA38 report for 2017 covers wildlife crime, based on 
different sets of data including national threat assessments. The new 
Strategic Analysis Unit at Europol has started to work on regular threat 
assessments covering various regional illegal trade phenomena.  

At the national level, a few Member States indicated that they will work 
on a more systematic assessment of wildlife-related cases to evaluate 
those which could be qualified as “organized” crime.  

Many Member States reported on initiatives by their enforcement 
authorities to step up activities against wildlife trafficking occurring online. 
This includes cooperation between CITES enforcement agencies and 
cybercrime units, as well as regular internet monitoring exercises on trade 
in protected species. At the EU level, a workshop on the trafficking in 
endangered species occurring through internet market places and social 
media took place on 8 November 2017 at Europol headquarters, in the 
presence of wildlife and cybercrime enforcement agencies from the 
Member States. The Commission and some Member States are also taking 
part in the working group set up in by the CITES Standing Committee on 
wildlife cybercrime, which is due to report back to the Committee meeting 
in October 2018. 

Limited progress was reported by Member States on investigations of 

37   http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11806-2017-INIT/en/pdf  
38   Serious Organised Crime Threat Assessment – see https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-

reports/european-union-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment-2017  

14 

 
                                                            
money laundering linked to wildlife trafficking. As an example, Operation 
Abaia led to the arrest of 17 people involved in the trafficking of glass eel, 
as well as to the seizure of luxury cars, EUR 1 million in cash and gold 
bars39. Many EU Member States contributed to the research report issued 
in 2017 by UNODC and the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering 
“Enhancing the Detection, Investigation and Disruption of Illicit Financial 
Flows from Wildlife Crime”40.  The United Kingdom's Illegal Wildlife Trade 
Challenge Fund has also funded work building capacity to investigate illicit 
financial flows in Southern Africa.  

The issue of wildlife trafficking has been put on the agenda of the CARIN 
network of asset recovery practitioners. At the CARIN Annual General 
Meeting held in Stockholm on 11-13 October 2017, the Secretariat of the 
Asset Recovery Interagency Network for South Africa delivered a 
presentation on the scale of wildlife trafficking in the region, on the 
financial flows toward other regions (notably Asia) and on some cases 
being investigated. The issue of money laundering linked to wildlife 
trafficking has not yet been brought as such to the agenda of the 
intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force41. 

The information provided by the Member States does not provide a 
comprehensive picture on how their legislation corresponds to the 
international commitment that organised wildlife trafficking should 
constitute a serious crime under the UN Convention against Transnational 
Organised Crime, i.e. be punishable by imprisonment of a maximum of at 
least four years. A few Member States indicated that their legislation was 
already compliant with this threshold (Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia); 
some Member States indicated that their legislation had been recently 
amended to increase sanctions linked to wildlife trafficking (France and 
Finland) while others (Denmark, Estonia, Czech Republic and Luxembourg) 
indicated the procedure to introduce such changes was ongoing. 

Information from the Member States is limited when it comes to the 
inclusion of wildlife trafficking as a predicate offence in their national 
legislation. The European Commission proposal for a Directive on 
countering money laundering by criminal law (COM 2016/826) explicitly 
makes wildlife trafficking as defined in Directive 2008/99/EC a predicate 
offence for the purposes of money laundering. The discussions are 
ongoing with the Parliament and the Council as part of the ordinary 
legislative process on this proposal.  

Action 22 
Member States ensure, 
in line with international 
commitments made, 
that organised wildlife 
trafficking constitutes 
throughout the EU a 
serious crime under the 
UN Convention against 
Transnational Organized 
Crime, i.e. that it is 
punishable by 
imprisonment of a 
maximum of at least 
four years 
Action 23 
Member States review, 
in line with UNGA 
Resolution, national 
legislation on money 
laundering to ensure 
that offences connected 
to wildlife trafficking can 
be treated as predicate 
offences and are 
actionable under 
domestic proceeds of 
crime legislation 

39   https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/17-arrested-for-smuggling-glass-eels-worth-eur-10-million  
40   https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/69/inf/E-SC69-Inf-05.pdf  
41   http://www.fatf-gafi.org/  

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
Objective 2.4 - Improve international cooperation on enforcement against wildlife 
trafficking 
Action 24 
Step up cooperation on 
enforcement between 
the Member States and 
EU enforcement actors 
and key non-EU 
countries and other 
regional Wildlife 
Enforcement Networks, 
relevant global networks  

With respect to Objective 2.4 (Improve international cooperation on 
enforcement against wildlife trafficking), most EU Member States took 
part actively in joint international law enforcement operations organised 
after the adoption of the Action Plan, such as Operations Thunderbird and 
Thunderstorm42 coordinated by Interpol in 2017 and 2018 respectively. A 
number of Member States are members of the Interpol working group on 
wildlife crime, which meet approximately once a year to increase 
international enforcement cooperation on wildlife trafficking. 

and  

Action 25 
Support capacity 
building for law 
enforcement in key 
source and market 
countries 

Wildlife trade enforcement agencies from China and Hong Kong Special 
Administrative Region were invited to a dedicated session of the wildlife 
trade enforcement group meeting in April 2018, in order to enhance 
cooperation on specific enforcement priorities. The UK and the Czech 
Republic have also engaged into bilateral cooperation with enforcement 
authorities from Vietnam, in view of the importance of this country as 
destination for illegal wildlife commodities exported from Europe. Spain 
has been working on enforcement cooperation with Mexico, especially on 
exotic bird trafficking. Some Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, 
The Netherlands and The United Kingdom) also reported on their 
capacity-building activities in support of enforcement agencies in third 
countries in Africa or Asia. Examples include the establishment of “Africa 
Twix” in Central Africa (supported by Belgium and Germany), 
enhancement of customs control in the port of Mombasa (supported by 
the Netherlands) or the training of rangers by the British military in Gabon 
and Malawi.  

The EU has consolidated and increased substantially its financial support 
to the activities of the International Consortium for Combating Wildlife 
Crime (ICCWC) – see Action 26. 

On a regional scale, a Nordic network on wildlife trafficking, gathering 
both Northern EU and non-EU countries, is being developed to 
contemplate common strategies for protecting Arctic flora and fauna 
species. 

Another example is the secondment by the French police of an officer to 
the environmental department of Interpol to work specifically on 
programmes against wildlife trafficking 

The project “Enhancing cooperation with Indonesia on trade in wildlife 
products” includes cooperation on enforcement among its objectives. 

42   https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/wildlife-crime-european-seizures-and-arrests-in-global-

operation-thunderstorm  

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
PRIORITY 3: Strengthening the global partnership of source, consumer and 
transit countries against wildlife trafficking 

Objective 3.1 – Provide increased, more effective and more strategically focused 
support to developing countries 
Action 26  
Ensure that wildlife 
trafficking is considered 
for EU funding under 
relevant programmes in 
the areas of natural 
resources 
management, 
environment, organised 
crime, security and 
governance 

Since the launch of the Action Plan, significant EU funds for 
international cooperation and development have contributed to 
achieving its wide-ranging objectives and actions, including many 
actions only indirectly targeting wildlife trafficking but with a significant 
positive impact.  
In the years 2016 and 2017, around EUR 340 million have been 
allocated under the EU development and cooperation policy to projects 
and programmes related directly or contributing to the implementation 
of the plan. This comes on top on many EU-funded wildlife-related 
programmes that have been running for many years already.  
Sub-Saharan Africa received the most funds (EUR 29 million for 
continental programmes, EUR 130 million for Central Africa and EUR 24 
million for other sub-regions), but no region has been left behind, as 
approximately EUR 45 million have been allocated to South America 
and the Caribbean and EUR 38 million to Asia and Pacific islands. 
On top of this, about EUR 73 million have been granted to projects 
implementing wildlife trafficking-related actions in a more global way. 
The 'Sustainable Wildlife Management' programme (EUR 45 million), 
for example, contributes to the conservation of wildlife and ecosystems 
in ACP countries (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific islands), while improving 
living conditions and food security for the local communities that 
depend on such resources. Other significant projects include the Save-
Our-Species programme (EUR 12 million, implemented by IUCN) and 
the Cross-Regional Wildlife Programme (EUR 17 million, implemented 
by UNODC) which cover all four regions of sub-Saharan Africa. 
The most relevant objectives of the plan for EU external action and 
development policy are the ones related to  
(i)  Rural communities, and their engagement in the management and 
conservation of wildlife and development of sustainable and 
alternative livelihoods (Objective 1.2); 

(ii)  Enforcement against wildlife trafficking at every level of the chain 

(Objectives 2.2, 2.3, 2.4); and  

(iii)  The implementation of the indicative conservation actions 

recommended in the strategic study "Larger than Elephant. – a 
Strategic Approach for Wildlife Conservation in Africa" (Objective 
3.1). 

However, because several results listed in the Action Plan are targeted 
within a great number of individual contracts, it is difficult to estimate 
how much money was allocated, or contributes, to each particular 
objective. For instance, many of the EU's wildlife-related programmes 
aim to conserve and protect national parks (Objective 3.1) while 
building capacities of rural communities to sustainably manage their 
natural resources and develop alternative livelihoods in and around 
these protected areas (Objective 1.2).  
In 2018, EUR 43.5 million will also be granted to organisations and 
projects that fall within a new programme specifically designed to 
implement the EU Wildlife Action Plan through law enforcement and 

17 

 
 
combatting wildlife and forest crime. This programme consists first in 
supporting the contribution of civil society and local communities to the 
fight against wildlife and forest crime (about EUR 30 million) in South 
East Asia, South America, and Africa. The second component (EUR 13.5 
million) enhances the activities of ICCWC, with a view to improving 
wildlife and forest law enforcement in targeted countries and 
international coordination.  
In addition, the Commission has launched projects financed under the 
Partnership Instrument to support EU-China, EU-Indonesia and EU-
Mexico efforts and cooperation against wildlife trafficking. 
Member States (Germany, United Kingdom, France) have also been 
providing financial support to national or regional programmes against 
wildlife trafficking through their development cooperation policy (see 
as well Actions 4, 5 and 25). The EU, Germany, the Netherlands, France 
and Belgium are contributing to the African Elephant Fund43. Finland 
reported on a multiannual project against illegal logging in Laos, 
conducted jointly with the World Bank.  

The project “Enhancing cooperation with Indonesia on trade in wildlife 
products” addresses the subject from two sides: on the one hand it 
facilitates cooperation with Indonesian authorities on compliance with 
the CITES regulation to ensure regularity of wildlife trade, the 
sustainable management and protection of species and on the other 
hand it facilitates cooperation with Indonesia to strengthen the fight 
against illegal wildlife trafficking. 

Some Member States reported on their participation in the World 
Bank’s Global Wildlife Programme, which is designed inter alia to 
ensure coordination of donors’ activities against wildlife trafficking. 

Action 27 
Increase effectiveness 
of funding support 
against wildlife 
trafficking 
Objective 3.2 Strengthen and coordinate better action against wildlife trafficking and its 
root causes with relevant source, transit and market countries 

Action 28 
Step up dialogue with 
key source, transit and 
market countries, 
including dialogue with 
local communities, civil 
society and the private 
sector 

The EU has been actively engaged in bilateral dialogues with a number 
of third countries on wildlife trafficking issues, through direct contacts 
or through the work of the EU Delegations in China (including Hong 
Kong SAR), USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Vietnam, Laos, 
Indonesia, Tunisia, Cameroon, Madagascar, Tanzania, Kenya, 
Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia, Senegal, Gabon, 
Guinea, Morocco and South Africa. A dedicated seminar on wildlife 
trafficking gathered participants from many EU Delegations in Brussels 
in February 2017 to raise their awareness on the problem and highlight 
their role in promoting an ambitious agenda in their bilateral policy, 
development and trade cooperation with third countries. In some of 
these countries, the EU Delegations have created or joined platforms 
with Member States and other international partners, which work in 
cooperation with the local authorities on issues related to wildlife 
trafficking.  
EU Delegations have, for example, been instrumental in: 

43   http://www.africanelephantfund.org/  

18 

 
                                                            
 
 
  promoting in third countries the implementation of CITES 
recommendations, of the “ICCWC toolkit44” or the MIKES 
programme45,  

  facilitating field missions by the CITES Secretariat,  
  encouraging the adoption of new legislative or regulatory measures 
or the follow-up of concrete wildlife trafficking cases in courts.  
In some cases, Delegations have also provided technical assistance to 
the host countries. Many work in close contact with international 
organisations such as Interpol or UNODC, civil society groups (for 
example the EAGLE Network) and local communities, notably those 
involved in EU-funded programmes.  
Wildlife trafficking issues feature regularly in bilateral policy dialogues 
between the Commission and third countries.  
In the wake of the Conferences organised in 2014, 2015 and 2016, 
leaders from source, transit and consumer countries will be invited by 
the United Kingdom to London in October 2018 for a fourth high-level 
Conference on wildlife trafficking46. 

Action 29 
Use EU trade policies 
and instruments 
proactively to support 
action against wildlife 
trafficking 

The EU is using various trade-related instruments to press for actions 
against wildlife trafficking, including through the inclusion of specific 
provisions in future Free Trade Agreements (for example with Vietnam), 
the implementation of the Generalised  
System of Preferences (GSP+) regime, as well as work at the multilateral 
level in the World Trade Organisation (notably via a presentation of the 
EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking at the WTO Committee on 
Trade and Environment in November 2016).  

The promotion of cooperation against wildlife trafficking features in the 
ASEAN-EU Plan of Action for 2018-202147. At the summit between the 
EU and the African Union in December 2017, both sides also committed 
to address illegal exploitation of natural resources and wildlife 
trafficking48.  

Action 30 
Strengthen cooperation 
against wildlife 
trafficking with relevant 
regional organisations, 
such as the African 
Union, SADC, the East 
African Community, 
ASEAN, and in relevant 
multilateral for a, such 
as ASEM. 
Objective 3.3 Address security dimension of wildlife trafficking 

Action 31 
Improve knowledge 
base and develop 
strategies to tackle the 
links between wildlife 
trafficking and security 

In order to ensure that interactions between wildlife (conservation and 
trafficking) and security are fully understood and addressed in the most 
coherent way by the future EU policy and programming, the 
Commission has launched a strategic study focused on Sub-Saharan 
Africa, which will feed into the larger conservation, development, 
security nexus approach of which the Action Plan against Wildlife 
Trafficking is a key component. This study should be published in the 
course of 2018.  
As an example of relevant activities by Member States, through its 

44   https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/wildlife-and-forest-crime/wildlife-and-forest-crime-analytic-toolkit.html  
45   https://cites.org/eng/prog/mike/proj/mikes  
46   http://www.illegalwildlifetrade.net/2017/11/24/london-2018-illegal-wildlife-trade-conference-oct-10-11-2018/  
47   http://asean.org/storage/2017/08/ASEAN-EU-POA-2018-2022-Final.pdf  
48   http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31991/33454-pr-final_declaration_au_eu_summit.pdf  

19 

 
                                                            
 
financial support to ICCWC, the United Kingdom is funding UNODC to 
conduct a threat assessment in West and Central Africa which will look 
at the security component of illegal wildlife trafficking. 

Objective 3.4 Strengthen multilateral efforts to combat wildlife trafficking 
Action 32 
Support the adoption 
and implementation of 
strong decisions, 
resolutions and political 
declarations on wildlife 
trafficking in 
international 
instruments and 
multilateral fora 

The EU and its Member States played a very active role at the 17th 
Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 2016. The EU tabled a significant 
number of proposals to this meeting. This included the listing of new 
species in CITES, in particular rare and valuable reptiles and birds, which 
are traded into the EU as exotic pets (see also Action 3). The EU 
successfully proposed a Resolution which, for the first time in CITES, 
clearly recognises that corruption is a key enabler for wildlife trafficking 
and calls on CITES Parties and bodies to prevent, detect and penalise it 
(see Action 8). The EU also pushed at the CITES CoP and at the CITES 
Standing Committee meeting in November 2017 for targeted 
recommendations and sanctions to improve the fight against ivory, 
rhino horn, rosewood and tiger trafficking. The EU provides specific 
financial support for the implementation of CITES CoP decisions and 
continues to follow up closely on their implementation.  

The EU contributed to the development and adoption of the Resolution 
on "Illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products" adopted by the 2nd UN 
Environment Assembly in 2016 and participated in the Hanoi 
Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade in November 2016. The EU is 
supporting the inclusion of wildlife trafficking on the agenda of other 
international bodies, in particular the G7 and G20. Bringing wildlife 
trafficking to all other relevant fora, including the Financial Action Task 
Force, remains a challenge.  

The EU and a number of Member States participated actively in the 6th 
Meeting of the Bern Convention Group of Experts on the Conservation 
of Birds (21 June 2017) and in the Joint Meeting of the Bern Convention 
Network of Special Focal Points on Eradication of Illegal Killing, Trapping 
and Trade in Wild Birds and the CMS Intergovernmental Task Force on 
Illegal Killing, Taking and Trade of Migratory Birds in the Mediterranean 
(MIKT). 
The scoreboard developed under MIKT was subsequently reflected in 
CMS Resolution 11.16 (Rev COP12) and Recommendation No. 196 
(2017) of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. 

20