25.5.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 184/81
3.5.
The EESC welcomes the fact that the European Commission has linked the revision of the Environmental Crime Directive to the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking.
However, is concerned that the Environmental Crime Directive will not be up to the task of providing effective and dissuasive sanctions for wildlife trafficking.
On 9 December 2022, the Council adopted its position on the file and significantly lowered the penalties for natural persons, while also reducing ambitions to harmonise sanctions for legal persons.
Levels proposed by the Council are too low to be dissuasive and effective.
Maximum fine limits should not be less than 15 % of the legal person’s total worldwide turnover — much higher than the 5 % or 3 % which were adopted by the Council.
We believe that an ambitious Environmental Crime Directive is essential for achieving a successful EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking.
4.
Specific comments 4.1.
The action plan should make explicit reference to whistle-blowers and other environmental human rights defenders as relevant stakeholders in developing and implementing it at EU and national levels, as they play a key role in exposing and preventing breaches of environmental law.
These people should also be protected from intimidation or litigation when reporting wildlife trafficking or assisting investigations, as currently stated in the Environmental Crime Directive.
4.2.
The EESC believes that it is important to engage with business sectors involved in wildlife trade to reduce the demand of wildlife products in the EU and to cut down illegal wildlife trade and ensure that any trade in wildlife is legal and sustainable.
The plan provides for thematic sessions with the EU Wildlife Trade Enforcement Group for relevant business representatives to address specific issues (e.g. traditional medicine, exotic pets, the luxury industry, hunting tourism, timber, the fishing and fish-product trade industries, transport, courier companies and online trade).
However, the role that CSOs can play to support efforts to combat wildlife trafficking should be better recognised and reflected in the action plan and through its implementation (e.g. raising awareness and conducting behaviour-change campaigns).
The information provided by the EU to its citizens about the rules, risks and consequences of trading and using wildlife products is not widely disseminated, yet information on practices and the use of traditional medicine (involving the use of parts and derivatives from wild fauna and flora for remedies) are widely spread across the EU.
This practice bears risks for users (as some remedies do not have scientifically proven benefits) and fatal consequences for the wild species caught and traded (accelerating their extinction).
With more prevention on this specific topic, the EU could cut down up to 30 % of wildlife products trafficked each year, as this number corresponds to the rate of seized wildlife products destined for medicinal use in the EU (10).
In this sense, the EESC and law enforcement agencies could also be involved in developing public campaigns to raise awareness about the problem.
4.3.
When assigning clear responsibilities for implementing actions at national level and ensuring coordination between the relevant actors, the EESC recommends homogeneity in all Member States.
Giving options such as those reflected in the plan to ensure coordination (for instance: (i) through the creation of inter-agency committees or memoranda of understanding; (ii) through the adoption of national action plans; or (iii) through the appointment of a national focal point) will lead to uncertainty, as Member States will choose different options.
Developing inter-agency committees at national level, with an appointed focal point for each will help implement the action plan.
4.4.
It is crucial that these inter-agency committees and specialised staff or units be trained homogenously in all 27 Member States.
This would facilitate cooperation within and between Member States because staff would react, investigate, and prosecute in the same way.
The fact that each inter-agency would have a focal point would also improve cooperation and coordination among Member States and with third countries outside the EU.
Having a focal point would improve cooperation because it makes it easier and faster for inter-agency committees and specialised staff in Member States to contact each other, especially when an urgent need arises due to cross-border trafficking.
Focal points could make cooperation among Member States more agile, without depending on international bodies such as Europol for more localised cases affecting two countries.
However, these groups could be at risk and become targets of organised criminals.
Detailed information about the focal points should be restricted to law enforcement agencies and judicial authority spheres in order to protect the identities of staff.
(10)
Council agrees its negotiating mandate on the environmental crime directive — Consilium (europa.eu).