Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:39 pm
Time: 8:39 pm
Results for wildlife crime (europe)
3 results foundAuthor: Engler, Maylynn Title: Opportunity or Threat: The Role of the European Union in Global Wildlife Trade Summary: The European Union (EU) ranks as the top global importer by value of many wild animal and plant commodities, including tropical timber, caviar, reptile skins and live reptiles. In 2005, the legal trade in wildlife products in the EU had an estimated declared import value of EUR93 billion, and EUR2.5 billion excluding timber and fisheries. As EU membership has expanded, the magnitude of the EU market for wildlife and wildlife products has also increased. The links between biodiversity conservation and sustainable development are now universally acknowledged, for example in the Millennium Development Goals and the conclusions of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. A sustainable trade in wild species can contribute significantly to rural incomes, and the effect upon local economies in developing countries can be substantial. The high value of wildlife and wildlife products can also provide a positive incentive for local communities to conserve wild species and their habitats. Consequently, sustainable wildlife trade is potentially beneficial to species and habitat conservation, as well as contributing towards sustainable livelihoods and development. However, unsustainable and illegal trade is a major factor driving biodiversity loss and poses a serious threat to the long-term survival of species including Big-leaf Mahogany Swietenia macrophylla, Vicuña Vicugna vicugna, and sturgeon species. Illegal wildlife trade also affects the economies of developing countries: illegal logging costs developing country governments an estimated EUR10–15 billion every year in lost revenue. There is a huge and escalating demand in Member States for exotic pets, tropical timber, and other wildlife products. While the majority of this wildlife trade into and within the EU is conducted legally, continued demand for some rare and protected species means that illegal wildlife trade still occurs. From 2003 to 2004, enforcement authorities in the EU made over 7000 seizures involving over 3.5 million CITES-listed specimens; from 2000–2005, almost 12 t of caviar were seized. The effect on wild populations of rare and endangered species can be devastating: in the last four years seizures in the EU of the Critically Endangered Egyptian Tortoise Testudo kleinmanni represented around 13% of the total estimated population remaining in the wild. The demand for rare specimens and products means that black market values can be very high: certain species of tortoise can fetch EUR30 000 per specimen. Low political awareness is also an exacerbating factor behind unsustainable and illegal trade, as are high prices for wildlife and low penalties. Low penalties may also influence trade routes: countries with low penalties become the gateway for illegal trade. It is little wonder that organized crime syndicates are engaged in wildlife crime. TheEUhas accomplished many significant achievements in wildlife law enforcement. These could be enhanced considerably through greater national, regional and interregional co-ordination. A co-ordinated EU wildlife trade enforcement action plan with identified priorities, and building on growing political will would considerably strengthen the EU’s response to illegal trade. The sustainability of the trade in wildlife is another key issue to address. Four case studies in this report (tropical timber, reptiles, caviar, and Vicuña products) highlight the role the EU plays in the global wildlife trade, and how the EU could co-ordinate its external assistance actions to maximise effectiveness. The European Commission and EUMember States have made a number of laudable interventions to ensure that trade is sustainable. However, EU external interventions are ad hoc and there are no means of ensuring co-ordination or complementarity of actions from the Member States or the European Commission. A strategic approach, based on priorities identified in collaboration with range States, would enable synergies to be developed, coordination between programmes and monitoring of the effectiveness of assistance interventions. The EU has made a number of policy commitments relevant to wildlife trade. The EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy provides the broad framework for the responsible management of natural resources and requires environmental sustainability to be part of all EU external policies. The Thematic Programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (ENRTP), under the Thematic Strategy, identifies broad objectives which align strongly with the objectives of the CITES Strategic Vision and with priorities identified in this report for EU external assistance. Furthermore, the EU Biodiversity Action Plan specifically calls for a co-ordinated EU response to unsustainable trade and constructive follow up to EU import suspensions. These political commitments set a positive course for the EU in taking responsibility to ensure wildlife trade is sustainable. But they are vague in terms of priorities, concrete targets and timelines required to achieve these goals, and lack specific guidance on meeting these obligations. Wildlife trade is implicitly recognized in all EU commitments to biodiversity conservation and its interface with sustainable development. Explicit acknowledgement of the steps required to achieve legal and sustainable wildlife trade came in December 2006 when the EU Council of Ministers adopted Council Conclusions calling upon the European Commission and the Member States: • To build capacity to strengthen implementation of CITES and policies for the conservation and sustain able use of wildlife in developing countries, ensuring complementarity of assistance provided, and • To reinforce efforts to combat illegal trade through a strengthened and co-ordinated response and actions for the enforcement of CITES. Details: Brussels, Belgium: Traffic Europe, 2007. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Traffic Europe Report: Accessed February 13, 2012 at: www.traffic.org/general-reports/traffic_pub_trade15.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 124113 Keywords: Illegal LoggingIllegal TradeOffenses Against the EnvironmentWild Animal TradeWildlife Crime (Europe) |
Author: Environmental Justice Foundation Title: Illegal Driftnetting in the Mediterranean Summary: Driftnets, ostensibly banned from the Mediterranean by both the European Union and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) since 2002 and 2003, respectively, continue to be used illegally across the region to catch valuable large pelagic species, mainly swordfish and tuna. There are estimated to be up to 600 illegal driftnet vessels operating in the Mediterranean, including many from EU Member States, namely Italy (100+ vessels), and France (70-100 vessels). Major fleets are also based in Morocco (150-300 vessels), Turkey (up to 110 vessels) and Algeria. Although there is very little data available on either the catch rate or the associated bycatch of this illegal fishery, it is clear that driftnetting practices, whether legal or illegal, have had devastating environmental consequences globally, and for the biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea in particular. Between 1986 and 1900, driftnets were responsible for 83% of all cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) stranded and, at the peak of driftnetting, an annual bycatch of over 8,000 cetaceans was estimated for Italian seas alone, with up to 10,000 dying annually across the whole Mediterranean. Vulnerable, slow reproducing species have suffered from high bycatch levels in driftnets, including sharks, rays, sea turtles and sea birds. According to figures supplied by the Italian Merchant Marine Ministry, in 1990-91 only 18% of the catch of the Italian driftnet fleet, which was the largest in the region at the time, was swordfish; the other 82% consisted of some different species, almost all of which were discarded. Despite the evident destructive nature of driftnets, also called ‘walls of death’, due to their propensity for catching enormous numbers of non-target species, a combination of weak enforcement and loopholes in French and Italian fisheries law have enabled sizeable driftnet fleets to flout EU and international law for more than a decade. The European authorities have openly acknowledged the Italian and French governments’ failure to enforce EU fisheries policy but have so far failed to punish these clear infractions of the Common Fisheries Policy. In France, effective action against driftnets has come not from the EU, but from three NGOs - France Nature Environnement, S.O.S Grand Bleu, and Groupe de Recherche sur les Cétacés (GREC) – who have successfully challenged the status of the “thonaille” fishery operating within the internationally protected Pelagos sanctuary for marine mammals. The thonaille is now officially recognised as a driftnet under French law and is therefore illegal. However, evidence from the 2006 season indicates that the ban is not being enforced and fishing continues with impunity. In Italy, driftnetting also continues, with 800km of nets confiscated by the Italian authorities in 2005 and 400km seized in the first half of 2006. The use of driftnets around the island of Ischia in the Tyrrhenian Sea has been monitored for a number of years by Delphis, a local cetacean research organisation. Illegally caught swordfish have been observed being landed and transferred onto vans bearing the EU logo, and numerous stranded striped dolphins and sperm whales have been found with scars indicative of being caught in driftnets. There is also compelling evidence from several sources that many vessel owners, having received up to €70,000 of EU taxpayers’ money as compensation, continue to fish illegally. The Italian authorities have spent more than €200 million compensating driftnet fishermen, with 75% of this coming from the EU. Despite the generous funding that has been allocated to phasing-out this destructive fishery, driftnets are actually getting bigger. Details: London: EJF, 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2013 at: http://www.theblackfish.org/files/Driftnets_EJF.pdf Year: 0 Country: Europe URL: http://www.theblackfish.org/files/Driftnets_EJF.pdf Shelf Number: 128098 Keywords: Illegal FishingWildlife ConservationWildlife Crime (Europe)Wildlife Law Enforcement |
Author: Bio Intelligence Service Title: Stocktaking of the Main Problems and Review of National Enforcement Mechanisms for Tackling Illegal Killing, Trapping and Trade of Birds in the EU. Final Report for the European Commission (DG Environment) Summary: The European Union (EU) is rich of a diversity of over 500 wild bird species. These species have been facing several threats for a long time: fragmentation and reduction of their habitat, diminution of their food supply linked to an intensification of agriculture, forestry and fisheries as well as direct threat to their population due to a massive use of pesticide, unregulated hunting and the development of illegal practices like poaching. Many species which suffer under an unfavourable population status are impacted by illegal killing (see annex 6). This is important because it increases threats to populations already threatened, but many common species with favourable status are also impacted, which may lead to an unfavourable status of these populations in the future. The Birds Directive (BD) is the legal EU text protecting birds. It has the overall goal to preserve all species of birds naturally occurring in the wild (articles 1 and 2), while allowing sustainable hunting activities for listed bird species (article 7). However, no reporting on this overall goal was found in the summary of the main findings in the report from the European Commission (EC) on the implementation of the Bird Directive (Period covered: 2005 – 2007, EC2009). Similarly to other biodiversity targets at EU and international levels, and considering the population status of several bird species, this overall goal can be considered however not (yet) achieved. The European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, co-organised by the Council of Europe and the Game Fund of Cyprus (Ministry of Interior) in July 2011 concluded that “despite efforts by many governmental authorities, illegal taking and trading in wild birds is still a serious pan- European problem with clear regional patterns, having a considerable negative impact on biodiversity across the continent. In some European countries, the driver for such activities is mainly direct or indirect financial profit for individuals or organised crime, generating illegal (untaxed) benefits not related to basic survival needs. Considering the multiple dimensions of illegal killing, trapping and trading of birds in Europe, such as the ecological/environmental, legal, economic, social and political aspects, a combination of measures, policies and strategies is necessary to solve the problem.” This study describes the situation in the EU related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds and reviews the enforcement mechanisms of Member States (MS) legislation implementing the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC and 2009/147/EEC). The information provided through the European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds forms an excellent resource to achieve this goal especially the materials collected by the Council of Europe and BirdLife International. The present report is composed of five main chapters. After a presentation of the main issues related to illegal killing of birds in Europe, the study reports the feeling of the different Member States concerning this issue. In the third chapter, a “country profile” assesses and summarises for each Member states the implementation and the enforcement of the Bird Directive. A focus is then realised on some examples of successful and failed enforcement. Finally, the main findings as well as the proposed recommendations to make more efficient the fight against the illegal killing of birds are available in the last chapter. The Birds Directive is the main EU text, which ensures the protection of threatened bird species. This Directive was adopted first in 1979 and “relates to the conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. It covers the protection, management and control of these species and lays down rules for their exploitation. It shall apply to birds, their eggs, nests and habitats” (article 1). The overall goal of the Birds Directive is, that “Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in article 1 at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level” (article 2.1). The Birds Directive allows hunting in certain conditions, recognising that it is an important recreational activity in some areas, that it can constitute an acceptable exploitation of species where populations can be maintained, and that it may be used as a tool to reduce ecological damage caused by birds. Hunting is a traditional recreation activity in most EU countries. Given how widespread it is, hunting is also an important economic activity, over and above providing an occasional source of income for landowners, and hunters, if the specimens are sold. The Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) has estimated that hunting accounts for 100 000 jobs in the EU, based on the approximation that 65 hunters are needed for the creation of one job (Pinet, 19952). In September 2010, FACE says there were 6,571 millions of hunters were recorded in the EU3. Hunting is differentiated from trapping since whereas hunting implicitly refers to the lawful pursuit and killing of wildlife for food, recreation or trade, trapping is usually considered separately since it does not involve the pursuit of the animal (note that trapping is legal under certain conditions). Lawful hunting and trapping of birds if properly managed can constitute a sustainable use of wild species for at least two reasons. Hunting can contribute to the restoration or maintenance of natural areas, through activities carried out by the hunters, and can be enhanced through the revenues raised from the sale of hunting licences. In France for example, the national hunting agency ONCFS manages 31 protected areas4. Hunting can also contribute to regulating or eradicating populations of some damaging species. For example, in France, the Great Cormorant and the Canada Goose can be hunted under a derogation year around for this reason. Not all killing and trapping of birds is performed in accordance with the law. Illegal killing, trapping or trade in the EU may be a significant driver in the decline of some wild bird populations and a cause of wider ecosystem disturbance (see examples in section 1.2). Illegal killing, trapping and trade encompasses: killing/shooting/trapping protected species (most of the species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, but also most of the species not listed in Annex I, unless authorised for hunting (Annex II) or under a derogation), capture of protected species, killing/trapping/capture in areas (e.g. bird sanctuaries) and/or periods during which hunting/trapping is forbidden (e.g. during the spring migration period, without derogation), use of methods prohibited under the Birds Directive without derogation (see annex 1), involuntary killing (using illegal products), killing/shooting/trapping game birds without a hunting licence, and nest robbery or nest destruction. Reasons for illegal killing/ trapping and trade of birds vary. In Mediterranean countries, some traditional delicacies involve songbirds (Franzen, 20105). Despite bans on songbird killing, there is still significant demand from restaurant owners. This demand has encouraged poaching and illegal trade since the sale of songbirds is well remunerated. Throughout the EU, raptors are illegally killed (mainly by the use of poisoned bait), as hunters often consider birds of prey to be “competitors”6. Farmers or fishermen may also consider that birds are reducing their yields. The poisoning of protected birds can also be an indirect, involuntary consequence of other practices. For instance, some hunters used to spread poisoned bait for foxes before breeding since they are considered a pest in several countries. Unfortunately, this bait is eaten by raptors and can kill them. In Ireland, over 20 protected birds of prey have been tested positive for exposure to poisons over the last three years. Many other species are poisoned but never found, which makes it hard to estimate the effect of poisoned bait on local population decline. Trophy hunting and taxidermy are also motivations for poachers. Trophy hunting is an old practice in southern and central Europe, going back to historical times when the head or pelt of an animal was displayed as a sign of prowess. An argument in favour of trophy hunting is based on projected economic benefits for the environment and local communities. Lindsey et al. (2007) developed for example the theory that trophy hunting is viable in countries that receive few conventional tourists. They have shown that compared to the ecotourism, trophy hunting can generate 14 times greater revenues. Consequently, they demonstrate that hunting can potentially generate considerable income without the environmental disagreement usually generated by the tourism (littering, fossil fuel use, habitat conversion for infrastructure development, etc.). The Capercaillie7 in several EU countries and also the migratory bird species on the Greek island of Zakynthos8 are both hunted to serve as trophies. While legal trophy hunting may provide interesting revenues in rural localities, illegal activities must be banned. Illegal trophy hunting and taxidermy can generate high benefits and are often associated with illegal trade. Details: Paris: Bio Intelligence Services, 2011. 215p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/BIO_BirdsIllegalKilling.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/BIO_BirdsIllegalKilling.pdf Shelf Number: 129203 Keywords: Animal PoachingBirdsIllegal HuntingIllegal Wildlife TradeWildlife Crime (Europe) |