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
European Commission (DG Environment) 30 December 2011
Project description
CLIENT: European Commission (DG Environment) Stocktaking of the main problems related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the European Union and review CONTRACT NAME of the enforcement mechanisms of Member States’ legislation implementing the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) CONTRACT NUMBER: Study contract n°07.0307/2011/595012/ETU/B3 REPORT TITLE: Final report Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national PROJECT NAME: enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU DATE: 30 December 2011
AUTHORS: Mr. Shailendra Mudgal, Bio Intelligence Service Dr. Anne Turbé, Bio Intelligence Service Ms. Sandra Berman, Bio Intelligence Service Dr. Ulrike Jana, Bio Intelligence Service Dr. Martin Schneider-Jacoby, Euronatur Mr. Gabriel Schwaderer, Euronatur
KEY CONTACTS: Shailendra Mudgal [email protected] Anne Turbé [email protected] Sandra Berman [email protected] + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The project team warmly thanks all Member State experts and members of the Ornis Committee for their precious answers. Special thanks also to Borut Stumberger for his expertise and advice during the project and Jeff Knott for the UK case. DISCLAIMER The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from the use of this report or its content. This report contains the results of research by the authors and is not to be perceived as the opinion of the European Commission.
Please cite this publication as: BIO Intelligence Service (2011), 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 prepared for. European Commission (DG Environment) ©BIO Intelligence Service 2011
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 2 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 3 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: SITUATION AND CHALLENGES RELATED TO ILLEGAL KILLING, TRAPPING AND TRADE OF BIRDS IN THE EU 13 1.1 Background of this study 14 1.2 Why is illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds a problem in the EU? 16 1.3 Aims of the project 27 1.4 International and European regulations and policies 27
1.4.1 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 28 1.4.2 The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern convention) 28 1.4.3 The Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn convention) 29 1.4.4 The Birds Directive 30 1.4.5 The Habitats Directive 32 1.5 EU interventions to solve the problem 32 CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN MS 39 2.1 Impact of activities 42 2.2 Data collection 44
2.2.1 Institutions in charge of the data collection 44 2.2.2 Countries for which information is available 46 2.3 Conclusion 47 CHAPTER 3: LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN MS TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE 50 3.1 Austria 52
3.1.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 52 3.1.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 52 3.1.1 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 55 3.1.2 Good practices 55 3.1.3 Main barriers 56 3.2 Belgium 57
3.2.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 57 3.2.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 58 3.2.3 Enforcement and awareness raising actions 59 3.2.4 Good practices 62
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 4 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
3.2.5 Main barriers 62 3.3 Bulgaria 63
3.3.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 63 3.3.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 63 3.3.3 Enforcement and awareness raising 64 3.3.4 Good practices 65 3.3.5 Main barriers 65 3.4 Cyprus 66
3.4.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 66 3.4.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 67 3.4.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 68 3.4.4 Good practices 69 3.4.5 Main barriers 69 3.5 Czech Republic 70
3.5.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 70 3.5.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 71 3.5.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 71 3.5.4 Good practices 72 3.5.5 Main barriers 73 3.6 Denmark 73
3.6.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing 73 3.6.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 73 3.6.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 75 3.6.4 Good practices 75 3.6.5 Main barriers 76 3.7 Estonia 77
3.7.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing 77 3.7.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 77 3.7.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 78 3.7.4 Good practices 79 3.7.5 Main barriers 79 3.8 Finland 79
3.8.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 79 3.8.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 79 3.8.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 80 3.8.4 Good practices 81
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 5 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
3.8.5 Main barriers 81 3.9 France 82
3.9.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 82 3.9.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 83 3.9.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 85 3.9.4 Good practices 88 3.9.5 Main barriers 88 3.10 Germany 89
3.10.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 89 3.10.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 89 3.10.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 91 3.10.4 Good practices 92 3.10.5 Main barriers 93 3.11 Greece 94
3.11.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 94 3.11.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 94 3.11.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 95 3.11.4 Good practices 96 3.11.5 Main barriers 97 3.12 Hungary 98
3.12.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing 98 3.12.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 99 3.12.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 100 3.12.4 Good practices 101 3.12.5 Main barriers 102 3.13 Ireland 103
3.13.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing 103 3.13.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 103 3.13.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 104 3.13.4 Good practices 105 3.13.5 Main barriers 105 3.14 Italy 105
3.14.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 105 3.14.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 106 3.14.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 107 3.14.4 Good practices 108
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 6 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
3.14.5 Main barriers 109 3.15 Latvia 109
3.15.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 109 3.15.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 109 3.15.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 111 3.15.4 Good practices 111 3.15.5 Main barriers 111 3.16 Lithuania 112
3.16.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 112 3.16.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 112 3.16.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 114 3.16.4 Good practices 116 3.16.5 Main barriers 116 3.17 Luxembourg 116
3.17.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 116 3.17.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 116 3.17.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 117 3.17.4 Good practices 118 3.17.5 Main barriers 118 3.18 Malta 119
3.18.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 119 3.18.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 119 3.18.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 120 3.18.4 Good practices 121 3.18.5 Main barriers 121 3.19 The Netherlands 123
3.19.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 123 3.19.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 123 3.19.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 124 3.19.4 Good practices 125 3.19.5 Main barriers 125 3.20 Poland 125
3.20.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 125 3.20.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 126 3.20.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 128 3.20.4 Good practices 130
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 7 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
3.20.5 Main barriers 130 3.21 Portugal 131
3.21.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 131 3.21.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 131 3.21.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 132 3.21.4 Good practices 133 3.21.5 Main barriers 133 3.22 Romania 134
3.22.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 134 3.22.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 134 3.22.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 135 3.22.4 Good practices 135 3.22.5 Main barriers 135 3.23 Slovakia 136
3.23.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 136 3.23.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 137 3.23.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 138 3.23.4 Good practices 140 3.23.5 Main barriers 141 3.24 Slovenia 142
3.24.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 142 3.24.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 142 3.24.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 144 3.24.4 Good practices 144 3.24.5 Main barriers 145 3.25 Spain 146
3.25.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 146 3.25.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 147 3.25.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 150 3.25.4 Good practices 150 3.25.5 Main barriers 151 3.26 Sweden 151
3.26.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing 151 3.26.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 152 3.26.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 153 3.26.4 Good practices 155
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 8 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
3.26.5 Main barriers 155 3.27 UK 155
3.27.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing 155 3.27.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive 156 3.27.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions 157 3.27.4 Good practices 159 3.27.5 Main barriers 160 3.28 Synthesis on good practices and barriers 160 CHAPTER 4: FOCUS ON SELECTED ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS 163 4.1 The Cyprus case 163
4.1.1 A difficult enforcement… 163 4.1.2 ...with encouraging actions 164 4.2 Stopping the poaching of Honey Buzzards and other migrating raptors in South Italy 164 4.3 Enforcement of legislation to eliminate bird crime - the Slovak experience since 2000 166 4.4 Task Force on criminal activity affecting the environment and food safety 168 4.5 Potential solutions to reduce persecution of Hen harriers in the UK 170 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 173 5.1 Findings of the study 173 5.2 Recommendations 177 5.2.1 At national level 177 5.2.2 At EU level 178
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 9 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Comparison of potential national hen harrier population based on the framework report with the actual survey describes the unfavourable situation of the hen harrier in UK (Kendall & Knott 2011) 20 Table 1-2 Life+ projects implemented since 2010 (funded from 2008) and including a section on illegal killing, trapping and trade 36 Table 2-1 Combinations of institutions in charge of the data collection and identification of the countries which use them 45 Table 4-1 Results obtained on birds illegal killing after 15 years of LIPO activities 165 Table 5-1 Specialised wildlife/environmental units in place in the EU and their staff resources and yearly budget. MS without special units are not mentioned in the table. 174
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Hunting and trade in birds for food in South-East and Central Europe (Traffic, 2008) 18 Figure 1-2 Annual number of proven cases of bird of prey persecution in NRW (January 2005 to December 2009, n=189, Hirschfeld 2010). 19 Figure 1-3 Recent trend in average detected levels of autumn mist netting on Cyprus. (BirdLife Cyprus and RSPB, 2011). 19 Figure 1-4 Population of Honey Buzzard counted during the Spring migration from 2004 to 2009, after several years of active control of poaching (Malara & Celada 2011). 21 Figure 1-5 Population trajectories (solid lines) for north Scotland (solid circles) and the Chilterns (solid diamonds) and two modelled trajectories (Smart et al. 2010). 21 Figure 1-6 Ranking of illegal activities in order of reported importance BirdLife (2011) 22 Figure 1-7 Poisoning of eagles in Hungary (MME in BirdLife 2011) 23 Figure 1-8 Trends in reported illegal imports of CITES-listed live birds by the ‘old’ 15 EU MS, Japan and the USA from 1996 to 2003 (Traffic Europe, 2006) 25 Figure 1-9 Trends in illegal reported exports and re-exports of CITES-listed live birds by the EU15, Japan and the USA from 1996 to 2003 (Traffic Europe, 2006) 26 Figure 1-10 Main international and European regulations protecting birds 27 Figure 2-1 How is the issue of illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds considered in each MS (n=24)? 40
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 10 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Figure 2-2 Reasons explaining why illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds is considered an issue of importance if illegal activities on birds are considered of importance (n=29 governmental institutions corresponding to 24 MS) 40 Figure 2-3 Illegal activity occurring in the MS and mentioned by the questioned governmental institutions (n=26) 41 Figure 2-4 Impact of the different activities in each MS (from the point of view of the questioned governmental institutions)(n=29) 43 Figure 2-5 Bird of Prey Poisoning Incidents in Scotland 2006-2010 44 Figure 2-6 Institutions in charge of the data collection mentioned by the governmental institutions (n=24) 45 Figure 3-1 Number of noticed wildlife poisoning cases in Hungary between 1998 and July 2010 (Bern questionnaire and MME BirdLife Hungary). 98
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 11 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 12 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Chapter 1: Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
In brief: Illegal birds killing, trapping and trade of birds includes shooting, trapping, poisoning or other means. It may refer to killing/trapping in areas and/or the period during which the hunting/trapping is forbidden, using illegal methods for killing/trapping birds, voluntary poisoning of certain species, killing/shooting/trapping/poisoning of protected birds, use of illegal products that kill birds, etc. The main issues identified in the EU are poisoning, illegal trapping, illegal bird trade, and killing for control of predators.
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,
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 13 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
economic, social and political aspects, a combination of measures, policies and strategies is necessary to solve the problem.”1
1.1 Background of this study
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
1 Larnaca Declaration available from www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/News/Cyprus/IKB_FinalDeclaration_Larnaca_July2011.pdf [Accessed 29/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 14 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
(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
2Pinet JM (1995) The hunters in Europe. Report: 1-12. Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE). 3 Source: FACE, Annual Report 2009-2010. Census of the number of hunters in Europe - September 2010, document available from: www.face.eu/Hunting%20in%20Europe/Census/DATA%20Hunters-region,%20Sept%202010.pdf 4chasseurs.ecluse.over-blog.com/article-le-bulletin-mensuel-de-l-oncfs-toujours-attendu-74164724.html 5Franzen J (2010) Emptying the Skies. The New Yorker 26: 48.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 15 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
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.
1.2 Why is illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds a problem in the EU?
Achievement of the 2020 target of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) The EU has gone beyond the CBD requirements9 in its recent biodiversity strategy, by committing itself to stop biodiversity loss by 2020, with most of the priority habitats and species on the road to recovery (EU, 2011). One of the six targets of the strategy specifically concerns the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and requests that “50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status”10. As many bird species listed in Annex I (Annex II of this report provides a non-exhaustive list of these species) are affected by illegal killing, trapping and trade, the EU must work with all MS to reduce these threats if it wants to achieve its targets for 2020. Furthermore, since many bird species such as songbirds and raptors are affected by illegal killing even though they are not listed in the BD, a
6 www.magnificentfrigatebird.com/blog/belgium-protected-birds-shot-poisoned/ 7 www.capercaillie-life.info/htm/bird_world_europe.php 8 www.thepetitionsite.com/2/the-illegal-hunting-of-migratory-birds-on-zakynthos-greece/ 9 www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/2011-2020/Aichi-Targets-EN.pdf 10 www.cbd.int/nbsap/about/targets/eu/
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 16 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
decrease of these illegal practices could improve the conservation status of these species and contribute to the achievement of the target of the EU strategy and CBD Aichi targets.
Migratory birds : an international issue Illegal killing often targets migratory species as they stop over in the EU. Since these are only transitory species, the illegal activities may not always directly affect the state of populations in the EU. However, they may contribute to the decline or extinction of those bird populations globally. Thus stopping these illegal activities would help the EU satisfy the sixth target of its biodiversity strategy, by “stepping up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss”. According to BirdLife (2011), the mortality by both legal and illegal killing and trapping on migratory birds is an important threat and a management issue to be considered in the viability of migratory birds populations. Hunting in the countries of the Council of Europe and the EU should be organised according to the provisions of the Bern Convention and the EU Birds Directive following the principles of sustainable wise use. Let alone the limited data available to undertake a precise estimate of the annual harvest on the majority of huntable species, a precise quantification at a continental and flyway scale of illegal killing is much more difficult to obtain (except for individual countries with comprehensive monitoring schemes, e.g. Cyprus); many authors stipulate that the impact of illegal killing of migratory birds is significant. Controlling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds is a complex issue. One reason is that it is hard to estimate the importance of these activities, as the illegal activities recorded are by definition only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, illegal activities are often very local. For instance, a legal hunter may also perform some illegal catching. Illegal poisoning activities are also difficult to quantify since the poisoned birds are rarely found. As a result, the recorded crimes commonly arise from official sources (e.g. fines given out by the competent authorities in each Member State, or controls at customs) but NGOs also provide data. For example, BirdLife has organised several camps or watch campaigns in some hotspots of illegal activities (Italy, Malta and Cyprus). During these periods, the volunteers focus on an area and record all evidence of illegal bird killing/trapping or trade activities. However, the surveys are not always performed with standard methods and may be biased: poachers for example can be aware of these campaigns and avoid the area during the concerned period. Significant illegal trade in birds is recognised as a serious conservation threat to some species: trafficking involving different countries inside and outside the EU (Figure 1-1) has developed. In this international network, birds are killed in Central Europe (mainly in the Balkan countries), transit by Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia and are finally delivered to Italy (Traffic, 200811). This kind of illegal activity is a serious problem since the impact is on a regional scale and involves large flows of money. Some of the species concerned by this traffic are already considered endangered by the IUCN. This is the case of the Red-breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis), which could be threatened by extinction if nothing is done to stop this illegal activity. However, the vast
11Traffic (2008) The illegal trade in wild birds for food through South-east and Central Europe.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 17 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
majority of birds traded are songbirds, including finches, pipits and larks protected under international treaties, and EU and national legislation (BirdLife International, 200812).
Figure 1-1 Hunting and trade in birds for food in South-East and Central Europe (Traffic, 2008) Scale of the problem and monitoring The scale of the problem is difficult to estimate in the EU. As illegal activities are difficult to monitor the knowledge and insight in the crime scene depends on the intensity of the data collection and the controlling. BirdLife (2011) recognises that the illegal activities against birds are difficult to monitor and the results are often biased as they over represent countries where data collection and problem analysis is more effective (e.g. UK situation) and under represent others. A brief review through reports from BirdLife as well as other NGOs and associations however reveals that at least 26 species listed in the Annex I are the object of illegal killing/ trapping and trade across the EU MS (see Annex 2). The number of incidents recorded depends on the methods and does not automatically indicate an increase in bird crime. Often newly applied methods and better coordinated control and data collection helps to detect a formerly hidden crime scene. For example in Nordrhein-Westfalen the clear increase of detected illegally killed raptors is very likely connected with the recently established “Stabsstelle Umweltkriminalität”, leading to effective coordination, more and better targeted controlling leading to a growing public and media interest and more hints from witnesses (Hirschfeld 2010, Figure 1-2).
12 BirdLife International (2008) Illegal trade in European songbirds for food. Presented as part of the BirdLife State of the world's birds website. Available from: www.BirdLife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/294.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 18 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Figure 1-2 Annual number of proven cases of bird of prey persecution in NRW (January 2005 to December 2009, n=189, Hirschfeld 2010). Only in very few countries monitoring programs have been started. The most comprehensive data collection has been organised in Cyprus. The monitoring for illegal trapping follows the so- called “Bird trapping protocol” that has been developed and implemented by BirdLife Cyprus following consultations with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB – BirdLife in the UK), the Cyprus Game Fund and the British Sovereign Base Area (SBA) police (Shialis 2011). The standardized monitoring of the illegal trapping in autumn started already in 2002 (BirdLife Cyprus and RSPB, 2011). The real impact and extent of bird crime and illegal killing can only be detected with such highly developed monitoring tools. The result of the 2010 monitoring on Cyprus reveals 75% increase in mist net use and an 89% increase in lime stick setting compared to autumn 2009 (Figure 1-3, note the large increase in mist netting from 2009 to 2010; the results are based on the standardized method of BirdLife Cyprus and RSPB).
Figure 1-3 Recent trend in average detected levels of autumn mist netting on Cyprus. (BirdLife Cyprus and RSPB, 2011).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 19 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
An alternative to direct monitoring of birds killings could be indirect monitoring based on population counts. For instance, Fieldings et al. (2010), following the approach adopted in the golden eagle conservation framework report (SNH Commissioned Report No. 193 – Whitfield et al. 2008), developed a conservation framework for the hen harrier based on two elements (Table 1-1): Modelling targets for favourable status based on criteria of abundance, demography and distribution, and an assessment of whether these targets are being met and, Consideration of constraints identified to be acting on hen harrier populations, regionally and nationally, and an assessment of policies influencing these. Table 1-1: Comparison of potential national hen harrier population based on the framework report with the actual survey describes the unfavourable situation of the hen harrier in UK (Kendall & Knott 2011) Potential pairs Actual pairs “Missing” pairs (from Framework) (from 2010 survey)
England 323-340 12 311-328 Scotland 1 467-1 897 489 978-1 408 Wales 246-260 57 189-203 Northern Ireland 148-156 59 89-97 UK (total) 2 184-2 653 617 1 567-2 036
Measurements of flight distance could also be used to indicate bird crime in an area, region or country.
The monitoring of the actions implemented to control illegal killing can also be performed indirectly, by looking at the recovery of the impacted populations. A good example is the recovery of honey buzzard thanks to the programmes started in South Italy and Sicily, which shows that the number of migrating honey buzzards doubled since 2004 (Malara & Celada 2011; Figure 1-4).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 20 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Figure 1-4 Population of Honey Buzzard counted during the Spring migration from 2004 to 2009, after several years of active control of poaching (Malara & Celada 2011). A species, for which the EU has a global responsibility, is the red kite (Milvus milvus) which is still impacted by illegal killing. The European population, mainly living in the EU MS, has declined by almost 20% during 1990–2000 and consequently was listed on the IUCN European Red list of species of greatest conservation concern. In UK the different population growth in two populations shows the impact of bird crime in different parts of the country. Smart et al (2010) reports that “illegal killing was responsible for 55% of the north Scotland red kites that were recovered dead where the cause of death could be established, and of the birds illegally killed, the vast majority were killed through direct poisoning, usually using carrion baits laced with poison.“ The effect of the illegal killing on the different populations has been tested (Figure 1-5).
Figure 1-5 Population trajectories (solid lines) for north Scotland (solid circles) and the Chilterns (solid diamonds) and two modelled trajectories (Smart et al. 2010).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 21 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Poisoning Poisoning is considered to be the most impacting illegal activities in bird killing in Europe (Figure 1-6).
Figure 1-6 Ranking of illegal activities in order of reported importance BirdLife (2011)
The eastern Imperial Eagle is one of the impacted birds of prey in Hungary, a globally threatened Eurasian bird species, with a world population of only a few thousand breeding pairs. Hungary holds the largest population of eastern imperial eagles in the European Union, as the 117 nesting pairs of the country represents 62% of the total EU population in 2010. According to MME, “poisoning was not noticed as a mortality factor of imperial eagles in Hungary till 2005, but during the last five years 36 specimens were found poisoned and 9 more were assumed to die directly or indirectly due to poisoning. Moreover other types of intentional persecution of imperial eagles were also reported, as 4 specimens and 2 nests with clutches were shot” (Figure 1-7).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 22 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Figure 1-7 Poisoning of eagles in Hungary (MME in BirdLife 2011) Deliberate poisoning Deliberate poisoning of birds of prey is a significant issue in nearly every EU country (e.g., Bijlsma & Zoun 2007, Faveyts 2007, Hernandez & Margalida 2008, Novotny et al. 2008, WWF Austria 2009). Poisoning is not only against the Bird Directive but it is also banned by the Bern Convention and considered as not acceptable by the European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. Deliberate poisoning may involve deliberate setting of poison baits or carcasses. Poisoning, mainly of birds of prey, is considered to be the most important issue regarding illegal killing of birds in Europe, due to its high conservation impact (average score given by Birdlife at European scale is 2.31/5; average score within the countries where the activity occurs is 3.46/5 and case studies illustrating them are available, see BirdLife, 2011). The MS where poisoning is widespread and has at least a moderate conservation impact on bird species are: Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Spain and the UK. In the last 10 years, poisoning of birds has increased in nine MS: Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Hungary, Greece, France, Bulgaria and Czech Republic. This activity has decreased in Poland, Cyprus, and Denmark. It has remained stable in the other countries concerned (BirdLife, 2011). Intentional poisoning of birds of prey for control of predators is reported in the BirdLife case studies for Hungary and Czech Republic for example. Hungary and Slovakia also reported to the Bern Convention that drivers for the direct poisoning of raptors was to reduce the number of predators. The active substance most frequently discovered in poisoned baits and post mortem examination of poisoned birds of prey is by a wide margin the insecticide Carbofuran (Hirschfeld 2010), shortly followed by Aldicarb. Together, the two pesticides account for three-quarters of known cases. In Scotland in 2007, for instance, Carbofuran was identified as the cause of death in 30 of 37 recorded raptor poisonings. In Spain, where using meat laced with Carbofuran, Aldicarb or strychnine to kill wildlife is particularly common, Martinez-Haro et al. (2008) were able to show a striking correlation between the toxicity (LD50) of pesticides and the frequency of their use to poison wild birds.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 23 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
The correlation demonstrated by Hirschfeld (2010) for individual districts within the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) between known poisoning cases and the numbers of hares and pheasants shot by hunters suggests that hunting interests play a central role in raptor persecution. That finding is in agreement with observations made in Spain, where Villafuerte et al. (1998) found strong declines in red kite populations in areas with high concentrations of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), while the number of breeding pairs in areas with low rabbit densities remained stable or increased. The authors trace Spain’s declining red kite numbers directly to the intervention of hunters, who are especially numerous and active in areas densely populated with small game. A similar association has been observed in Scotland, where raptors are poisoned with particular frequency in areas where the popular game bird willow grouse is present (Whitfield et al. 2003). Unintentional poisoning As identified above, pesticides are often found to be the cause of bird deaths and could also include in certain cases unintentional poisoning of birds. For example poisoned baits intended for rodents and pesticides to kill pest species may be ingested by birds, leading to their death. This may occur from the use of illegal products (in which case it is illegal killing for the scope of this study) or of legal products with unintentional consequences (out of the scope of this study). Another possibility is that birds are indirectly poisoned by traces of lead, especially in water, causing a further threat especially to wildfowl and birds of prey (Hirschfeld and Heyd 2005). In several EU countries the use of lead shot is banned from use in or around wetlands specifically. Poisoning can however also occur from a legal use of lead. Studies of wild geese in various areas of Europe have shown that the bodies of about a quarter of all young birds and a good 60 % of adult geese contain lead. Scientists estimate that these involuntary hunting souvenirs increase the mortality rate of populations by an additional 5 %, due to lead poisoning or internal injuries (Mooij 1995; Madsen and Noer 1996). Fatal concentrations of lead were found in the bodies of white-tailed eagles in Germany and Austria, from lead ingested in their diet (Kenntner et al. 2001) and high numbers of lead intoxicated eagles are reported in the Müritz National Park (Spicher 2011). Additionally, lead can impact birds reproduction capability. Illegal trapping According to BirdLife (2011) illegal trapping is a widespread problem, not only limited to the Mediterranean countries. Trapping can also be practiced legally (under a derogation regime for certain species) but it is difficult to control. Estimating the impact on bird populations is not easy to quantify with the available data. Many traps are non-selective, which increases the already high ecological impact of such activities. Systematic sampling in Cyprus estimated a toll of around 1.4 million birds in 2010, only within the Famagusta and Larnaca districts (Birdlife, 2011). In addition, the labelling of some illegal killing/trapping methods as traditional is problematic. A special case of such a tradition is the eating of Ortolan bunting in France. Although illegal, it is promoted on a local level and has been even informally allowed (Le Gall 2011). The control is difficult as trappers use the legalized trapping of song birds, such as skylarks, to hide their illegal activities. Illegal trapping for consumption is often connected with a crime scene interested in profit-making. The present practice is often quite different than the historical one. For example
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 24 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
in Cyprus mist nets are used today, as they allow mass-capture. In addition, the old trappers have stopped working, and organized crime has taken over the business. Illegal bird trade Every year, an estimated 350 million animals and plants are traded internationally; this figure comprises around four million of wild birds (Karesh et al., 200513). The trade of wild species is worth than 14 million euro, a large percentage of it being illegal. All regions worldwide supply the demand for wild birds, but mainly Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Neotropics. Historically, Europe and the United States of America (USA) were the main destinations for birds under international trade (Thomsen, Edwards and Mulliken, 199214). Illegal bird trade is a very significant issue in the EU, and compared to the rest of the world. In the period of 1996 to 2003, the EU15 MS were by far the largest reported importers of CITES-listed live birds globally15 (Figure 1-8). The EU15 trade accounted for 77% of global imports, far ahead of Japan (20 times more) and the USA (100 times more).
80000
60000
40000 1400000 20000 1200000 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 1000000
800000
600000 EU 15
Number of specimens of Number 400000 Japon
200000 USA
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Figure 1-8 Trends in reported illegal imports of CITES-listed live birds by the ‘old’ 15 EU MS, Japan and the USA from 1996 to 2003 (Traffic Europe, 2006) In addition, as well as being the main reported importer of CITES-listed live birds, the EU15 is also the main reported exporter. This illegal trade represents 77% of global export of CITES-listed live birds (same figure than for the global import).
13 Karesh WB, Cook RA, Bennett EL, Newcomb J (2005) Wildlife Trade and Global Disease Emergence. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11 : 1000-1002. 14 Thomsen, J.B., Edwards S.R. & Mulliken, T.A. 1992. Perceptions, conservation, and management of wild birds in trade. Species in Danger Series Report. Cambridge, UK, Traffic International. 165 pp. 15 Source: CITES trade statistics derived from the CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 25 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
140000
120000
100000
80000 EU 15 Japon 60000 USA Number of specimens of Number 40000
20000
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Figure 1-9 Trends in illegal reported exports and re-exports of CITES-listed live birds by the EU15, Japan and the USA from 1996 to 2003 (Traffic Europe, 2006) The removal of wildlife for commercial purposes is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss. Then, the reduction of these figures might be a potential driver that could help the EU meet its 2020 CBD targets. Killing for control of predators BirdLife (2011) reports some raptors and fish eating birds are killed in Europe because they are considered as predators to game species or fish. The fact that a majority of shot birds are collected during the legal hunting season and that the most frequently shot species are birds of prey (Anima, 2011) may indicate that raptors are still seen as competitors by some hunters (Schneider-Jacoby, pers. comm.). During the hunting season, illegal shooting is more difficult to detect since shooting is allowed. In Greece, the NGO Anima for example reports that 84 % of the illegally shot birds collected were birds of prey, and that killing increased with the intensity of the hunting season. Poisoning is also often used to eliminate the competing birds of prey (see section 1.2, p.16). Recently, the magnitude of hen harrier persecution was quantified in several reviews. For example, Redpath et al. (2010) found that there were records of only five successful hen harrier nests in an area of habitat estimated to have the potential to support about 500 pairs. Some countries, such as Austria, have exemptions that legalise killing for the control of predators16. The exemption claims that killing the raptors is necessary to protect leisure hunting according the complaint to the EC of the NGOs17.
16 NÖ Beutegreiferverordnung, 6500/14–0 Stammverordnung 95a/08 2008-12-11, Blatt 1-3 17 Rechtliche Stellungnahme an die EU Kommission zur Niederösterreichischen Beutegreifer-Verordnung. BirdLife Österreich & WWF Österreich, NATURSCHUTZBUND NÖ Oktober 2010
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 26 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
1.3 Aims of the project
The aim of this study is to better understand the issue of illegal killing/trapping and trade of birds in the EU and to obtain an overview of the importance of these illegal practices in each MS. The first part of the study focuses on assessing how the different national authorities perceive the problem of illegal killing/trapping and trade of birds, regarding its scale, drivers and ecological impacts. This assessment was performed through an on-line consultation of MS, and complemented by a brief literature review. The results of this consultation and further details on the methodology are provided in Chapter 2:. The second part of the study provides an assessment of the MS legislation implementing the Birds Directive and its enforcement mechanisms. This will provide the Commission with an overview and comparison of the most relevant law enforcement mechanisms in Member States by establishing how well the instruments in place already enable to deal with the illegal killing/capture and trade of birds. The MS were consulted through a questionnaire, as explained in Chapter 3:. Together, this will allow to provide recommendations for effective measures in controlling the problem of illegal killing, trapping and trade in birds in the EU.
1.4 International and European regulations and policies
At the international level, different conventions ensure the protection of endangered species from trade and hunting (a synthesis of these regulations is provided in Figure 1-10). Usually, the signatory countries need to adopt their own legislation to implement and enforce the different conventions at the national scale.
HUNTING CAPTURE TRADE OTHER THREATS
CITES (1973) CBD (1992)
International Ramsar Bern Convention (1979) regulations Convention (1971) Bonn Convention (1979) migratory species only
European Habitats Directive Birds Directive (1979) regulations (1992)
Figure 1-10 Main international and European regulations protecting birds
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 27 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
1.4.1 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora18 (CITES), also known as the Washington Convention was adopted in 1973 and has to date 175 parties, including all EU MS. CITES aims to protect species from the detrimental effects of international trade by establishing an international legal framework for preventing or controlling trade. Species listed on Appendix I of the Convention are considered to be threatened with extinction and are not allowed to be traded commercially, whilst those on Appendix II are only allowed to enter international trade under specific controlled circumstances. Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade. Currently 161 bird species are listed on Appendix I, more than 1 300 on Appendix II and 25 on Appendix III. European bird species (other than some vagrants) and species that are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive that are also listed in CITES were automatically listed in Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 on wild species trade, regardless of the CITES Appendix they are in. CITES provides a legally-binding framework respected by each Party, which must adopt their own domestic legislation to implement CITES at the national level. There are four major requirements for a Party: designation of Management and Scientific Authorities; laws prohibiting the trade in violation of CITES; penalties for such trade;
1.4.2 The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern convention)
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats19 was adopted in Bern in 1979. The Convention has now been signed by all MS of the Council of Europe (except San Marino and Russia), Burkina Faso, Morocco, Tunisia and Senegal. This binding international legal instrument (for the Parties to the Convention) was the first which aimed to ensure the conservation and protection of wild plant and animal species and their natural habitats (listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention respectively), to increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to regulate the exploitation of those species (including migratory species listed in Appendix 3). To this end the Convention imposes legal obligations on contracting parties, protecting over 500 wild plant species and more than 1000 wild animal species. In Annex II more than one hundred bird species are currently mentioned as “strictly protected fauna species”. Some bird’s orders are entirely protected: this is for example the case of the order
18 Text of the CITES is available from: www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml 19 Text of the Bern Convention and the Appendixes are available from: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/Birds/default_en.asp
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 28 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Gaviiformes which comprises five different species. All the European species not included in this annex are mentioned in annex III (except 11 species mainly of the genus Larus and Corvus which do not really need to be protected). In addition, the convention in the Annex IV bans 17 methods of killing and capture of birds. The list of these methods is provided in annex 1 of this report. Since the edition of this convention, 20 recommendations concerning birds were adopted by the standing committee and proposed by the Group of Experts on Conservation of Birds (formed in 1997). Two specifically target the illegal killing/ trapping and trade: Recommendation No. 90 (2001) on the catching, killing or trading of protected birds in Cyprus and, Recommendation No. 5 (1986) of the standing committee on the prosecution of persons illegally catching, killing or trading in protected birds. This issue is also mentioned into some other recommendations: Recommendation No. 60 (1997) on the implementation of the action plans for globally threatened birds in EU: recommends an enforcement “of the existing hunting and conservation regulations so as to stop mortality caused by the use of poison baits and illegal shooting”; Recommendation No. 93 (2002) on the further implementation of Action Plans for Globally threatened birds and on other issues of interest for bird conservation in the Convention’s range: asks for an improvement of the regulation and control method “to prevent illegal hunting” in Albania.
1.4.3 The Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn convention)
The Convention on Migratory Species20 (CMS) was adopted in Bonn in 1979. Currently, nearly 100 countries are Contracting Parties. The Convention aims to conserve terrestrial and marine migratory species, including many birds. The Contracting Parties cooperate to conserve migratory species and their habitats by providing strict protection for endangered migratory species, including 78 birds, listed on Appendix I, by concluding multilateral agreements for the conservation and management of migratory species, including 112 birds, listed in Appendix II, and by undertaking co-operative research activities. The African-Eurasian Waterbird agreement was developed under the CMS to coordinate and concert actions throughout the migration system of 255 species of birds ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle. At the meeting of the Parties in 2008, resolution 4.3 on hunting and trade calls for further activities for ensuring sustainable hunting of
20 Text of the CMS and the Appendixes are available from: www.cms.int/documents/index.htm
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 29 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
water birds. Guidelines on sustainable harvest of migratory waterbirds were also adopted and updated in 200521.
1.4.4 The Birds Directive
At the European level, the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC), adopted in 1979, is the main legislative instruments which ensures birds protection, including species that accidentally visit the European countries, and which regulates hunting in the EU. The Directive recognises that habitat loss and degradation are the most important threats for bird conservation (article 4) and so recommends protection of the habitats for the endangered and migratory species (these 195 species and sub-species are listed in Annex I of the Directive). Although there is a general ban on the killing of wild birds, the directive allows certain species to be hunted outside the breeding and prenuptial (or spring) migration periods. Article 7 lists 82 species which can be hunted in EU MS (listed in Annex II of the Directive). Hunting periods are set at national or regional level, on the basis of scientific principles and data, and vary according to the species and the geographical location. EU MS may decide whether or not to allow hunting for the species listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive. Exceptionally, MS can allow the capture and killing of birds covered by the directive outside of the normal hunting season for a limited number of reasons, but only where no alternative solution exists. These reasons are listed in the Birds Directive and are the following: in the interests of public health and safety, in the interests of air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, for the protection of flora and fauna, for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of re- introduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes and, to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers. Each EU Member State has to transpose the Directive in its national regulatory framework. An illustration of how this was done in the UK is shown in Box 1-1. A wide range of other statutory and non-statutory activities also support the implementation of the Birds Directive in the UK. These include national bird monitoring schemes, bird conservation research, and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, all of which involves actions for a number of bird species and the habitats which support them.
21 Available from www.unep-aewa.org/publications/conservation_guidelines/pdf/cg_5new.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 30 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Box 1-1 Transposition of the Birds Directive to UK legislation Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) This act is the primary legislation which protects animals, plants, and certain habitats in the UK. It makes it an offence (with exception to species listed in Schedule 2) to intentionally: kill, injure, or take any wild bird, take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built, take or destroy an egg of any wild bird. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) These regulations consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and Wales. The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; This is the principle mechanism for the legislative protection of wildlife in Great Britain. This text presents 8 sections related to bird protection which notably: prohibit the intentional killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird and the taking, damaging or destroying of the nest or eggs. It prohibits possession of wild birds or their eggs, restricts sales or other form of trade of live wild birds, prohibit the use of certain types of trap, poison, bird-lime, etc, for catching or injuring birds. Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 2007 Wild birds know as European protected species (Annex I of the Birds Directive) are protected in the offshore marine area. It is an offence to: deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild bird or any wild animal of a European protected species, take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built, take or destroy an egg of any wild bird or deliberately take or destroy the eggs of a European protected species, keep or transport, sell or offer for sale any live or dead wild bird (or egg), European protected species, or certain plants which were taken from the wild, or any part of or anything derived from such a wild bird, animal or plant.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 31 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
1.4.5 The Habitats Directive
The “Habitats Directive” (Directive 93/43/EEC) aims to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring MS to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species listed on the Annexes to the Directive at a favourable conservation status. This directive has led to the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas in the EU. This network will be developed further in this report (see section 1.5). European birds will benefit indirectly from the habitat protection measures (including the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SPAs), which are a component of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas). Article 6 of the Directive also has direct implications for the management and conservation of SPAs identified under article 4 of the Birds Directive.
1.5 EU interventions to solve the problem
The main actions undertaken by the EU to reduce the problem of illegal bird killing include: Ornis Committee The ORNIS Committee was created to assist in the Birds Directive application. It brings together representatives of the 27 MS and the European Commission. Selected stakeholders such as hunting and environmental organisations may be invited in certain cases. The Committee serves as a platform to discuss issues related to the protection of birds in the EU and to exchange amongst MS and with the Commission on best practices, national issues and/or barriers. The Committee may also adapt Annexes I and V. Guidance document on Hunting under the Birds Directive The overall aim of this guidance document is to clarify the requirement of the Birds Directive relating to hunting. The essential focus is on articles 7 and 9 of the BD. The guide refers to all the huntable species listed in Annex II as well as the relevant provisions of articles 7 and 9. The guide intends to provide an overview of the existing case law of the Court, which is already quite extensive. This determines aspects of the guide, especially where clear positions have already been established by the Court. The guide also aims to explain the ecological principles that underpin the management of hunting under the Directive and makes use of best available scientific data, although it is recognised that the lack of good quality scientific data creates a constraint in so far as trying to correctly and accurately manage populations. Finally, it recognises that the management of hunting is under the responsibility of the MS, including their role in determine hunting seasons within their territory in accordance with the requirements of the Directive.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 32 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Sustainable Hunting Initiative The European Commission has promoted a new dialogue between organisations dealing with the conservation and the wise use of birds. Several campaigns and actions were encouraged by the EC to promote sustainable practices. In 2001, the Commission launched the Sustainable Hunting Initiative (SHI) with the cooperation of MS, bird conservation groups BirdLife International and the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE). In 2004 BirdLife International and FACE signed an international agreement on hunting within the scope of the Birds Directive. In the context of the SHI a guide was produced in 2004 to present the best practices to achieve this: “Guide on Hunting under the Birds Directive” (see previous section). In addition, BirdLife and FACE have also reached the same year an agreement22 on ten points which will enable hunting to continue within a well-regulated framework, whilst fully respecting the provisions of the Directive. This was signed at a high profile event on the 12th October 2004 and marks the beginning of the end of more than a decade of sensitive conflict. Several actions have been engaged since this date. In 2006, BirdLife and FACE have been involved in a project aiming to promote Natura 2000 to hunters23. The Bern Convention also addressed sustainable hunting and developed a European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity, adopted in November 2007. In principle, hunting may be performed within the Natura 2000 sites, as long as the sites’ conservation objectives are not affected. In the European guidance on hunting24, the European Union underlines that: “Hunting is only one of the many potential uses of NATURA 2000 sites, alongside uses such as agriculture, fisheries and other forms of recreation. There is no general presumption against hunting in NATURA 2000 areas under the nature directives. However, it is clear that hunting and other human activities have potential to lead to a temporary reduction in use of habitats within a site. Such activities would be significant if they would lead to a pronounced reduction in the capacity of the site to support the species for which it was designated and would also result in reduced hunting potential.” The EC has launched the Natura 2000 Networking Programme25, which aims to promote awareness and understanding of Natura 2000, assist partnerships and share experience and good practice. Within this initiative, a dedicated awareness-raising programme on Natura 2000 among hunters was supported by the Commission.
22 Document available from: ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/agreement_en.pdf 23 Description of the project is available from: www.facenatura2000.net/ 24 Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/C2007- 18/Communication/SupportingDocumentation2006.12.04/EUKommissionenGuidance_birdsdirect_en.pdf 25 See www.natura.org/
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 33 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Derogations Derogations are intended to allow flexibility of action in pursuit of a common purpose. Both the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention have systems for allowing derogations in specific circumstances. Article 9 of the Birds Directive – which describes the exceptional cases in which otherwise prohibited actions may be allowed26 –needs to be interpreted as subsidiary to the common article 1 goal of conserving all naturally occurring bird species in the wild state within the European territory of the Member States (Shine 2010). The derogations must follow a strictly defined framework as identified in articles 9(1) and (2). Each year, a report is sent by the MS to the Commission on the implementation of these articles. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that the consequences of these derogations do not hinder the aims of the Directive and must take appropriate steps to this end. As regards the derogations to the Bern convention, and based on an examination of derogations currently in effect, the authors of the report to the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention repeatedly found the following issues: gaps and irregularities in the categories and amounts of information submitted that made it impossible to identify the species covered by the derogation, implementation via administrative practices rather than legislation, discrepancies in the reasons indicated for granting derogations, lack of robust population data to justify derogations. Even when formally complete, derogations create precedents that undermine the credibility of the Birds and Habitat directives and ongoing educational programs. Increasingly, supporters of ecologically unsound practices including traps that kill indiscriminately, spring hunting of game species and the killing of raptors can justify their views by pointing to derogations that are nominally in compliance with the Birds Directive. Transposition and Enforcement MS are required to transpose a Directive in national law. The European Commission is then entitled to prosecute a MS who is late with the transposition, or who has not transposed the Directive completely. Enforcement is a responsibility of the MS. The European Commission has not taken legal actions against MS for lack of law enforcement for the moment. However, the EC could be instrumental in disseminating best practices or helping MS in other ways. Enforcement means that actions are taken to ensure that the law is abided by, by discovering and sanctioning offenders. Enforcement of nature laws in general can be difficult due to low awareness of the regulations, of the impacts to species and habitats and/or to difficulties in covering the whole territory on which actions can take place to identify offenders. Foreseen sanctions may also be low in relation to the benefits
26 Shine, C. (2010) Interpretation of Article 9 of the Bern Convention. Bern Convention – Standing Committee Dec. 2010, T-PVS/Inf (2010) 16.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 34 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
derived from offences. Another big problem is the control of illegal killing when exemptions are in place. It becomes difficult to distinguish between “legalised otherwise illegal killing” (due to national derogations) and illegal killing. For example, illegal killing for control of predators in Belgium mainly targets the Grey heron and the Great cormorant, although derogation for shooting these species without limitation period are also issued. According to BirdLife Belgium, “it is now difficult to assess the difference between authorized culling and non-authorized culling” (BirdLife 2011). Similarly in Austria rare raptors are threatened by a derogation which allows to shoot buzzard and goshawk. Life+ projects In addition to the promotion of a sustainable hunting, the EC can also fund Life+ projects that help bird species to recover a favourable conservation status. Since 2010, nine projects involving bird species threatened by illegal activities have been implemented (see Table 1-2), mainly in Bulgaria and in Spain. The projects are mainly focused on the conservation of bird species in general and the harmful effect of illegal killing is developed only in a sub section of the project which deals with all the threats encountered for the species. Two projects specifically target illegal killing through poisoning actions. One concerns the entire Mediterranean region whereas the second is focused on Spain. Both projects have developed awareness and dissemination actions through the wide public and to key stakeholders such as hunters.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 35 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Table 1-2 Life+ projects implemented since 2010 (funded from 2008) and including a section on illegal killing, trapping and trade Actions carried on to reduce the threats of illegal Project title Coordinator Bird species involved Budget Duration activities * Anti-poisoning campaign launched Recovery of the populations of * Gyps fulvus Green Balkans * Capacity of more than 250 people from nature large European vultures in 2010- Stara Zagora Non- * Gypaetus barbatus conservation NGOs, park authorities, RIEW, 1,332M€ Bulgaria (LIFE08 NAT/BG/000278) 2014 Profit Organisation veterinaries and hunters improved for monitoring, * Agypius monachus protecting and managing priority habitats and species; * Pelecanus crispus Ensuring Conservation of Priority * Microcarbo pygmaeus Bird Species and Coastal Habitats Bulgarian Society * Reducing of disturbances caused by poachers. 2010- at the Bourgas Natura 2000 for the Protection * Botaurus stellaris This activity will be implemented together with 1,775M€ 2013 Wetland Sites (LIFE08 of Birds local hunters and fishers. * Oxyura leucocephala NAT/BG/000277) * Aythya nyroca
* An intensive communication programme, Conservation of Falco cherrug in targeting farmers, game managers and political Northeast Bulgaria, Hungary, Bükk National Park * Falco cherrug 2010- decision-makers at local and national level will 4,033€ Romania and Slovakia (LIFE09 Directorate 2014 increase awareness in the target groups and create NAT/HU/000384) support for saker falcon conservation measures.
Securing the population of Aquila * protection of eagle nesting sites clanga in Poland: preparation of Towarzystwo * Aquila clanga 2010- the National Action Plan and Ochrony Przyrody * raising awareness of authorities, key stakeholders 2,209M€ 2013 primary site conservation (LIFE08 Ptaki Polskie and the local public of the conservation needs of the NAT/PL/000511) species
36 | Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Actions carried on to reduce the threats of illegal Project title Coordinator Bird species involved Budget Duration activities Regional Conservation of Aquila pomarina in Environmental * Aquila pomarina * Hunters and gamekeepers will be informed about 2010- 1,884M€ Romania (LIFE08 NAT/RO/000501) Protection Agency - the conservation values of the species. 2013 Sibiu * Aquila pomarina * The raising of public awareness via 240 Conservation of Aquila pomarina in Raptor Protection educational presentations in schools and 2011- 1,045M€ Slovakia (LIFE09 NAT/SK/000396) of Slovakia information sessions targeting 260 stakeholders 2014 and 75 hunters * High quality information about illegal poisoning activities in the pilot areas * Production of specific indicators to assess: the * Aegypius monachus direct use of poison and related aspects * Aquila heliaca adalberti * All 89 municipalities within the pilot areas to Innovative actions against illegal 2010- Fundación adhere to guidelines of the European Network of poisoning in EU Mediterranean * Gypaetus barbatus 5,661M€ 2015 Gypaetus Municipalities against Illegal Poisoning (ENMAIP) pilot areas (LIFE09 NAT/ES/000533) * Hieraaetus fasciatus * 18 hunting zones in each pilot area to adhere to * Neophron percnopterus the guidelines of the European Network of Hunting Areas against Illegal Poisoning * Development of awareness and dissemination activities The General Conservación de oxyura Directorate of * The project will assess and mitigate human 2010- leucocephala en la región de Natural Heritage * Oxyura leucocephala 1,342M€ threats to the species and habitat. 2014 Murcia (LIFE09 NAT/ES/000516) and Biodiversity Society)
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU | 37
Situation and challenges related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Actions carried on to reduce the threats of illegal Project title Coordinator Bird species involved Budget Duration activities * Reduction in the illegal use of poisons for predator * Aegypius monachus control, particularly in sites covered by Spain’s SPA * Aquila heliaca adalberti network SEO/BirdLife * Gypaetus barbatus * Approval of regional action plans and protocols to Action to fight illegal poison use in (Spanish help authorities tackle illegal use of poisons for 2010- the natural environment in Spain * Gyps fulvus 1,672M€ Ornithology predator control 2014 (LIFE08 NAT/E/000062) Society) * Hieraaetus fasciatus * Increased public support for the prevention of * Milvus milvus illegal poison use in predator control * Neophron percnopterus * Greater controls on the sale of licensed toxic products * Develop an integrated strategy covering reduction in the risk of poisoning, mitigating * Gypaetus barbatus conflict between large carnivores and farmers, and ANTIDOTO - A new strategy Ente Parco * Gyps fulvus restocking key species in target areas against the poisoning of large nazionale del Gran 2009- * Milvus migrans * Set up and manage Anti-Poison Units 705M€ carnivores and scavengers raptors Sasso e Monti della 2013 (LIFE07/NAT/IT/000436) Laga * Milvus milvus * Prepare a feasibility plan in cooperation with local stakeholders for re-stocking griffon vultures in the * Neophron percnopterus Gran Sasso Park and Aragon and to implement the plan
38 | Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Overview of the main issues
Chapter 2: Overview of the main issues in MS
In brief: Six MS consider the issue as having significant importance, 24 MS considered it of medium importance, four MS not important, three countries did not answer. The four main illegal activities reported were shooting, poisoning, trapping of birds, and killing of protected bird species.
The aim of this chapter is to provide the Commission with the MS opinion on the issue of illegal killing/trapping and trade of birds as well as the scale and character of the problems encountered in each country. The stakeholders involved in each MS will be identified. In addition, when information is available from the governmental institutions the nature and the extent of the main problems related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds across the MS will also be developed as well as the motives behind these illegal activities To answer these questions, a short questionnaire (annex 3) was sent to all the MS through the Ornis Committee. Altogether, 44 questionnaires were sent and 28 answers were received, from 22 MS (a table with the list of the MS which answered is available in annex 4). The questionnaire for Italy was actually filled in by the project team based on the Bern Convention report produced by the Italian Ministry of Environment and with his agreement. Twenty-seven of these answers come from governmental institutions and one from an NGO. The analysis developed below is based only on the answers from the governmental institutions (answers from NGO and associations have been excluded). Two MS, UK and Poland, sent several questionnaires: Several UK institutions answered for three of the four countries of UK (England, Scotland and Wales) as well as for UK in general. Each questionnaire was included in the analysis when the questions concerned the point of view of the respondent institutions and the when the question targeted each MS specifically, only the global answer for UK was taken into account. The same strategy was used for Poland which also answered from two different departments, the Forest Department (General Directorate for Environmental Protection) and the Nature Protection Department (Ministry of the Environment). All the questionnaires were considered to represent the opinion of one governmental institution. Scale of the issue The large majority of MS that replied to the questionnaire judge that the level of illegal activities targeting birds (killing, trapping or trade) is important (Figure 2-1). Forty eight percent of MS replied that the current level of the activities makes illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds an issue of medium importance. Six MS (33%) consider it is an issue of significant importance: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and the UK (especially in Wales and Scotland). Seven MS answered that this issue was not important in their country: Denmark, Estonia , Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg and. Poland. In Poland, the issue was not considered very important, but the perspective differed depending on the department: for the Department for
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 39 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Overview of the main issues
Nature Protection illegal activities on birds are of medium importance in Poland, whereas for the Department of Forestry they are not important.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 46%
40% 29% 30% 25% 20%
10%
0% of significant importance of medium importance of no importance
Figure 2-1 How is the issue of illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds considered in each MS (n=24)? The following figure shows the reasons for considering illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds an issue of importance in the MS. 52% of the respondents answered that these illegal practices concern protected species and 34% mentioned that these practices affect conservation of birds.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 52% 50%
40% 34%
30% 28%
20% 14% 10%
0% Protected species impact on conservation it is a widespread No answer of birds practice
Figure 2-2 Reasons explaining why illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds is considered an issue of importance if illegal activities on birds are considered of importance (n=29 governmental institutions corresponding to 24 MS)
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 40 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Overview of the main issues
Type of illegal activities According to the questionnaire, the main illegal activities occurring in the MS are: killing of protected species (77% of the questioned governmental institution mentioned this issue), shooting of birds (77%), trapping of birds (73%), poisoning of birds (73%), capture of protected species and killing by use of illegal products (both 58%). Figure 2-3 presents all the results obtained. In the category “other”, three unlisted additional illegal activities were recorded: nest robbery, nest destroying and absence of licence for game birds hunting.
100%
90%
80% 77% 77% 73% 73% 70%
60% 58% 58% 54% 50% 50% 46%
38% 40%
30% 23% 20%
10%
0% Shooting of Poisoning of Trapping of Trade of Killing of Capture of Killing using Killing in Killing in Killing by use Other birds birds birds birds species species illegal periods areas where of illegal which are which are methods where hunting is products protected protected hunting is not not authorised authorised
Figure 2-3 Illegal activity occurring in the MS and mentioned by the questioned governmental institutions (n=26)
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 41 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Overview of the main issues
2.1 Impact of activities
he eight activities proposed in the questionnaire have been selected due to their occurrence in the literature and in the reports from wild bird protection NGOs and Tassociation. The aim of this question was to assess if the importance of these activities is shared by NGOs and the governmental institutions. According to the national authorities, poisoning activities (intentional and non-intentional) have the greatest impact on birds. Intentional poisoning was mentioned by 19 of the respondents to have some impact on bird species, while accidental poisoning was mentioned by 16 of the respondents. The impacts concern targeted species as well as by-catch species and wider conservation issues. These two activities are widespread across Europe. Trapping and capturing of birds for live sale or personal use were also recognised as important by more than half of the national authorities (both by 15 respondents). These activities impact mainly targeted species, even if Belgium, Portugal and Slovakia also recognise a wider impact on by-catch species. Shooting and trapping of birds for food or trophies were not reported as a widespread issue in Europe. These issues tend to be more country-specific. For example in Cyprus, shooting and trapping for serving in restaurants are recognised to have an impact on both target and by-catch species, as well as on wider conservation issue. Slovakia and Hungary also reported shooting and Portugal trapping, each time for serving in restaurants, as activities with impacts on target, by- catch and/or wider conservation issues . Similarly, shooting and trapping birds for trophies appear to concern mostly Eastern European MS (Czech Republic, Romania, and Slovakia), where targeted and/or by-catch species are affected, but also in Portugal, where shooting for trophies has an impact on targeted species.
100% 14% 17% 14% 17%
80%
60%
76% 69% 79% 76% 40%
20% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% Shooting - for serving in Shooting - for trophies Trapping - for serving in Trapping - for trophies restaurants restaurants
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 42 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Overview of the main issues
100% 7% 10% 7% 10%
80% 28% 41% 38% 34% 3% 60%
3% 14% 14% 7% 34% 40% 10% 24% 20% 41% 28% 28% 7% 10% 0% Trapping/Capturing - for live Trapping/Capturing - for Poisoning - intentional Poisoning - accidental sale personal use impact of pest control (illegal products) Impact on targeted species Impact on by-catch species Impact on both target and by-catch species Impact on wider conservation issues No impact/irrelevant No answer
Figure 2-4 Impact of the different activities in each MS (from the point of view of the questioned governmental institutions)(n=29)
A review of the literature (including grey literature) indicates that the issue of bird poisoning is well documented, and seems to concern mainly birds of prey. In Germany for example, in January 2011, 33 raptors had been poisoned with the pesticide Carbofuran (illegal product) and the anaesthetic Penthobarbital27 (anaesthetic baits are prohibited according to the Birds Directive). In UK, the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime in Scotland (PAW Scotland) has provided the map of confirmed incidents of birds of prey poisoning in 2006-2010 (Figure 2-5). The main targeted bird species were Buzzards, Golden eagle, Peregrine falcon and Sea eagle. On the contrary, the trapping/capturing for live sale and personal use are rarely mentioned on the websites or the reports of the NGO. The trapping and shooting of birds for serving in restaurant in Cyprus is also well documented. This illegal activity has also been recorded in Italy and Malta, and may lead to organised traffic (WWF, 200828; Traffic, 2008). Whether or not birds are still killed for food on Malta is debated.
27 Raptor politics : raptorpolitics.org.uk/2011/02/24/50-buzzards-poisoned-in-southern-germany/ 28 www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/index.cfm?uNewsID=2367
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 43 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Overview of the main issues
Figure 2-5 Bird of Prey Poisoning Incidents in Scotland 2006-2010
2.2 Data collection
2.2.1 Institutions in charge of the data collection
Among the 24 MS that responded to the questionnaire, 79% collect data about bird mortality and its causes, such as illegal killing/shooting/poisoning/trapping/trade of birds. Different institutions are responsible for the data collection and they are not all governmental. Figure 2-6 shows that NGOs are responsible for the data collection in 15 of the 29 governmental institutions that responded. Except in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, the NGOs generally share this responsibility with other institutions, notably specialised agencies.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 44 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Overview of the main issues
70% 60% 60% 56%
50%
40% 28% 30% 24% 20% 16%
10%
0% Ministry of Regional Specialised NGO Other Environment authority agency
Figure 2-6 Institutions in charge of the data collection mentioned by the governmental institutions (n=24) Twelve different combinations of institutions have been recorded during the survey. They are presented in the Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Combinations of institutions in charge of the data collection and identification of the countries which use them Countries using this combination Combination type NGO Netherlands, Czech Republic
Specialised agency Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France Regional authority Lithuania Ministry of Environment and NGO Luxembourg, Hungary
Ministry of Environment and specialised agency Portugal Ministry of Environment and Regional authority Spain
Specialised agency and NGO Poland and Ireland Regional authority and NGO Austria NGO and police Italy Ministry of Environment, regional authority, Sweden specialised agency and NGO Specialised agency and Ministry of Interior Cyprus Specialised agency, NGO and Ministry of UK, Slovakia Environment
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 45 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Overview of the main issues
2.2.2 Countries for which information is available
Overall, the different institutions in charge of the data collection provide seven main types of information: data on birds killed illegally, data on birds trapped illegally, data on birds poisoned illegally, data on illegal trade of birds, data on birds illegally captured, data on birds illegally kept and, sanctions and fines given. The detailed results of the survey are summarised in annex 5. This survey highlighted the heterogeneity in the types of data collected across MS. Some countries, like Sweden, recognise that data collection is insufficient except for game birds. The Czech Republic is the only country that holds a database pooling all the data related to illegal killing/trapping and trade, the “Free Wings Database”. Nevertheless, this database is unofficial and the collection of data is not systematic. A global overview of the annex 5 reveals that the main data collected are those related with the birds killed (13 of the 23 questioned MS) and those which quantify the sanctions and fines given (7 of the 23 questioned MS). For birds illegally killed, data concerned mainly dead birds reported to the wildlife care centre to the specialised agency. Thirteen countries collect these data. Some of them also collect complementary information such as location of the killed bird and cause of death. The data are not homogeneous across MS since some countries focus only on protected species, and others only on birds of prey for example. Seven countries have reported that they collect data about sanctions and fines, as well as illegal activities recorded by the police and the number of people who were convicted. In conclusion, no country appears to hold a comprehensive system of data collection, covering all the categories mentioned above. In general, only one or two categories are covered by each MS and there is no harmonisation of the data.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 46 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Overview of the main issues
2.3 Conclusion
The good response rate obtained for this questionnaire (89% of the MS) and the number of MS covered (24) despite the short deadline shows that the MS are globally concerned by the issue of illegal killing/trapping and trade of birds. This survey has revealed that poisoning is one of the four major threat recorded across Europe, with intentional poisoning having a large impact on both target and by-catch species. It does not concern only intentional poisoning but also unintentional through the use of banned products like pesticides. The species affected by the different illegal activities are mainly protected species. As it has been shown in the introduction, at least 22 species of the annex I of the Birds Directive are impacted by these illegal practices. This survey also highlights the large participation of NGOs in the data collection on these illegal issues, since about 50% of the MS recognise that they use NGO data. Several types of data are collected across the MS, but the survey has revealed heterogeneity since they are not the same in different MS, not allowing a good interpretation of the figures at the European scale.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 47 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Overview of the main issues
This page is left intentionally blank.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 48 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Overview of the main issues
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 49 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Chapter 3: Legislation and enforcement actions in MS to deal with the issue
In brief: Each Member State is presented following the same structure, with the main issues it faces, the implementation of the BD in the MS, enforcement activities and awareness-raising actions, and highlighting good practices and barriers to enforcement.
In this chapter, the implementation and enforcement of the Birds Directive (BD) were assessed for each of the 27 MS. A profile was performed for each MS along the following points: Main issues related to illegal birds killing, Implementation of the BD, Enforcement of regulations and awareness-raising actions, Good practices, and Main barriers. Regarding issues related to illegal birds killing, the point of view of the relevant authorities was collected using the first questionnaire to the members of the Ornis Committee (see Annex 3) and through reports to the Bern Convention sent by some MS to prepare the Larnaca conference (from 6 to 8 July 2011)29. This section also uses information from the BirdLife report “Review of the illegal killing and trapping of birds in Europe” by the NGO BirdLife (BirdLife, 2011) written for the Larnaca Conference. The rest of the country profile was based on a second questionnaire and desktop research. An internet search through the websites of the Ministries (Justice, Environment and Agriculture) as well as legal sites (International Wildlife Law30, the World Law Guide31, etc.) was carried out to look for the national texts implementing the BD and to identify the different enforcement units in charge of the birds concerns. This second questionnaire focused on enforcement was sent to the Ornis members (available in Annex 8). Fifteen countries responded, corresponding to an answer rate of 52%: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK. The country
29 Further information about the conference is available from: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/News/Cyprus/Cyprus_en.asp and the national reports are available from: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=T-PVS/Inf(2011)11&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DG4- Nature&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864
30 Available from: www.internationalwildlifelaw.org/ [Accessed 29/9/2011]
31 Available from: www.lexadin.nl/wlg/ [Accessed 29/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 50 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
factsheets were sent individually for review by the MS, with Austrian regions, Poland, Portugal and Latvia answering in addition to the MS which answered the second questionnaire. In five Member States in which regions have some legislative autonomy (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain and the UK), the implementation of the BD have also been studied at the regional scale.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 51 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.1 Austria
3.1.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
As a federal republic, Austria is divided into nine states. These states are not mere administrative divisions but also have some legislative authority distinct from the federal government, notably in terms of nature protection and hunting. The Austrian government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds as an issue of medium importance that mainly affects protected species. It reported two main illegal activities occurring on the Austrian territory: shooting of birds, and poisoning of birds. For BirdLife Austria, illegal activities have remained stable in the last 10 years. The poisoning and shooting of raptors is still an important and quite well documented concern for the country, as well as the illegal trade of birds. The main driver of illegal activity is “Killing for ‘control’ of predators”. Poisoning is the main means of action. Species affected are the Eurasian Eagle owl, the Common Buzzard, the Northern Harrier, the Western Marsh-harrier, the white tailed Eagle, the Eastern Imperial Eagle, the Northern Goshawk, the Rook, the Hooded Crow, the Carrion Crow, the Eurasian Jay and the European Magpie. This poisoning activity began to occur in Austria during the 1990s and was mainly due to the illegal use of pesticides such as Carbofuran, which was being used illegally against both mammalian and avian predators. Now these practices are on the decline. The regional State of Lower Austria reported however that the Common Buzzard and the Northern Goshawk may be regulated under a derogation of the Birds directive in certain numbers32. The regulation of the Carrion Crow, the Eurasian Jay and the European Magpie is also legal under Lower Austrian Law.
3.1.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The Birds Directive is mainly implemented via Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection laws and hunting laws, which are stated at regional level. At the national level, the Federal Act on the Protection of Animals33 prohibits animal cruelty in general (article 5) and the detention, even temporary, of wild birds (article 16). This text imposes
32 NÖ Beutegreiferverordnung,available from: www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/LrNo/LRNI_2008095a/LRNI_2008095a.pdf 33 Available from : bkacms.bka.gv.at/2004/10/7/animalprotectionact_neu.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 52 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
fines of up to 7 500 EUR for people who inflict pain, suffering or injury on an animal (see article 38) and up to 15 000 EUR in cases of recidivism. The Federal Act on Trade of Wild Flora and Fauna34 is the main implementation of CITES and of article 6 of the Birds Directive. Article 7 authorises experts and the authorities to enter land or buildings, to open containers and vehicles and to inspect and carry out checks. In case of infractions of the provisions of article 6 of the BD, the sanctions can reach an imprisonment up to two years or a fine up to 360 daily rates35. A person who buys, offers to purchase or otherwise acquires, showcases, holds, transports, sells or offers for sale certain species may be punished. Finally, in the Criminal code36, article 222 relates to cruelty against animals. This article can be used in cases of poisoning (notably of birds of prey). In accordance with articles 7 and 8 of the BD, article 138 sanctions people who do not respect hunting and fishing rights by an imprisonment of up to three years, notably for the following actions: hunting during the closed season, use of poison baits, trapping with an electrical system, and use of explosives or snares which endanger fish or wildlife. Article 182 punishes people for “endangering an animal population in a larger area”. This article can be used for prosecuting cases of poisoned birds if the species is considered threatened. This action can be punished by an imprisonment up to two years or a fine up to 360 daily rates. Vorarlberg State In the Vorarlberg State, the BD is mainly implemented in Nature conservation Ordinance37 (No 8/1998 as amended by 76/2009). All the articles related to birds are grouped in the first section of this ordinance entitled “Protection of plants and animals and their habitats”. Two articles appear particularly relevant. Article 7 focuses on protected birds. It implements articles 5 and 7 of the BD, lists the authorised game birds and the prohibited hunting methods (which corresponds to article 8 of the BD). This article also specifies that the authorities have to request a certificate or official identification if they find a person who has removed a bird or a nest from the wild. Article 9 presents the requirement for taxidermists. Several pieces of information (the name of the object, its origin, the name and address of the consignment and of the recipient, etc.) must be kept by the taxidermist in case the authorities carry out a check. In addition, Vorarlberg State also implements article 7 of the BD through article 1 of its decree on hunting38. Carinthia State
34 Available from : www.internationalwildlifelaw.org/Austria.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011] 35 In Austria and Germany fines are calculated in daily rates, which depend on the income of the person that is punished 36 Available from : www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002296 [Accessed 19/7/2011] 37 Available from : voris.vorarlberg.at/VorisDownload/6/6000-1.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011] 38 Available from : faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/aut92303.pdf[Accessed 24/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 53 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
The Nature Conservation Act 200239 combines the transposition of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Section IV focuses on protection of plants and animals. Article 17 refers explicitly to article 5 of the BD and states that free-living animals (not only protected species) must not be wantonly disturbed, hunted, injured or killed. Article 19 addresses specifically the case of protected species and prohibits disturbing, capturing, transporting, keeping or killing them. Article 57 explains that in case of damage to a protected species, the operator (of a protected area for example) has to inform the competent authority of all the relevant aspects of the situation. Article 65 indicates the different responsibilities for enforcement of this Act. Several actors are involved: the federal police, the customs authorities as well as forestry and hunting agencies, which have to notify the competent authorities if they perceive infringements during the exercise of their supervisory work. Finally, article 67 focuses on the penalties. A violation of articles 17 or 19 falls under the district administrative authority with a fine of up to 3 630 EUR. This fine can reach up to 7 260 EUR in the presence of aggravating circumstances and in case of recurrence. Lower Austria State The Birds and Habitats Directives are transposed under the “Lower Austrian Nature Conservation Act 2000”40 and the “Lower Austrian Hunting Law of 1974” (“NÖ Jagdgesetz 1974”41). Under this law, Article 3 paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (§ 3 Absatz 2 bis 9) address the protected species, with specific prohibitions concerning disturbing, capturing etc and any derogations of these prohibitions. Article 134 (§ 134) indicates the responsibilities for the enforcement of this act and all the regulations and decisions based on it. Article 135 (§ 135) focuses on penalties. A fine of up to 15 000 EUR is possible. Styria State The BD is mainly implemented through Law of 30 June 1976 on the protection of nature and landscape conservation42 also called the Styrian Nature Conservation Act 1976 (No 65/1976). All the regulations related to birds are presented in the twelfth section of this act, entitled “Protection of plants and animal species”. This law has an article especially devoted to the protection of birds. Article 13 is the direct transposition of articles 5 and 6 of the BD. Tirol State The BD is mainly implemented through Tyrolean Nature Conservation Act 2005 (No 26/2005), which is a re-publication of Tyrolean Nature Conservation Act 1997. All the regulations related to birds are presented in section 12 of this act, entitled “Protection of plants and animal species”.
39 Available from : www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=LrK&Gesetzesnummer=20000118 [Accessed 19/7/2011] 40 Available from: www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/LrNo/LRNI_2010004/LRNI_2010004.pdf
41 Available from: www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/LrNo/LRNI_2011084/LRNI_2011084.pdf 42 Available from: www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=LrStmk&Dokumentnummer=LRST_5500_002 [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 54 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Article 25 is especially devoted to the protection of birds and is the direct transposition of articles 5 and 6 of the BD. Article 1 of Tyrol Hunting Law43 implements article 7 of the BD.
3.1.1 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of enforcement Various actors are responsible for the enforcement of the BD: the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Criminal Offices of the federal states and the environmental section of the criminal department of the “State Police Department”. The Austrian Hunters Association can also be involved in bird protection (see section 3.1.4). Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes In Austria, it appears that there is no website or hotline where the citizen can report a bird crime. The best method seems to inform the police directly. Awareness raising NGOs are also very active in terms of awareness raising. The Austrian government recognises the key role of BirdLife. The international NGO WWF is also very active in Austria, notably to protect raptors from poisoning.
3.1.2 Good practices
The “Poison Beware!” project aims to raise public awareness about illegal use of pesticides such as Carbofuran. The project also seeks to improve the prosecution of those individuals who use poison and to reduce the incidents of poisoning overall in Austria by improving detection. A major reason for the implementation of this project was the fact that poisoned baits pose a serious threat to endangered raptors such as the White-tailed and Imperial Eagles – the populations of both species had just started to recover when the poisoning wave emerged, causing an unacceptable number of casualties among large raptors. Finally, the project also deals with lead intoxication and illegal shooting of protected raptors. The project focuses on raising public awareness among the public at large but also among particular targeted groups. Veterinarians and local communities who live and work in the regions where White-tailed eagles over-winter are all kept informed with information on how they can help protect these birds. Just as importantly, hunters, conservation wardens and the police are also targeted.
43 Available from: www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails;document_Tyrol%20Hunting%20Law%202004..html?DIDPFDSIjses sionid=8D9C3C42E50FCCA0C18769D5C15450EA?id=LEX-FAOC092559&index=documents [Accessed 24/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 55 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
During this project, WWF produced a “Poison Beware!” manual. The manual contains detailed instructions for how people finding poisoned raptors can report the incident to the right authorities. The manual is distributed to more than 1 000 veterinarians all over eastern Austria each year, while additional information is published on a service homepage for veterinarians. A poster containing information on poisoning issues is distributed to more than 200 communities located in the wintering areas of White-tailed eagles. These posters are then placed on official community information boards within each appropriate region. Instructions on how to report poisoning incidents are also published in the journal of the Austrian Hunters Association. Articles on White-tailed eagles and the “Poison Beware!” initiative are sometimes published in the same journal. The “Poison Beware!” project is also presented and discussed at information meetings for regional conservation wardens. After each major poisoning incident, WWF and the Hunters Association make a joint press release. When there is a poisoning incident, one person from WWF and one person from the Hunters Association together with the police examine the crime site and scrutinise the surrounding area for evidence of further bait and casualties that may have gone undetected. Thanks to this project, the breeding population now expands across the three federal states of Styria, Burgenland and Lower Austria.
3.1.3 Main barriers
The derogation on killing raptors in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich) is considered by NGOs as a main barrier to preventing the illegal killing of raptors44. Even Imperial Eagles and other rare birds of prey are reported by the NGO to be shot in Austria by hunters. For example, hunters consider Imperial eagles as competitors. To implement the BD in full, a clear ban on raptor hunting is needed according to that NGO along with an education programme with the hunting organisations as a part of the Sustainable Hunting Initiative. However, the State authorities responsible for hunting reported that the derogation only applies for two species of raptors, the Common Buzzard and the Northern Goshawk, and was granted based on scientific expertise, which allows the taking of less than 1% of the annual mortality rate. Additionally the document that states these affirmations was not sent to the authorities not publicised. While the issue of derogations is not included in the scope of this report, as it is a legal activity, this shows an example where an NGO and the authorities are of diverging opinions and illustrate the issue of derogations that may be wrongly seen as legalising the killing of other species.
44 Rechtliche Stellungnahme an die EU Kommission zur Niederösterreichischen Beutegreifer-Verordnung
Von BirdLife Österreich, WWF Österreich, NATURSCHUTZBUND NÖ - Oktober 2010
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 56 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.2 Belgium
3.2.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
Answers were provided from the Flemish government only for the first questionnaire and a common answer for the whole of Belgium was then reported to the second questionnaire. The Flemish government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds as an issue of medium importance. The illegal practices occurring in Flanders are the following: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing and capture of protected species, killing using illegal methods, killing during illegal periods and in illegal areas, and involuntary killing by use of illegal products. The different NGOs involved in bird protection recognise the existence of this issue. According to BirdLife, the main issues in Belgium are the poisoning of raptors and the capturing of bird species for keeping in cages. The goshawk and the common buzzard are mentioned as being affected by poisoning in Flanders. There are also some reports of stealing of the eggs of the Black Stork and the Red Kite in the Ardennes. Killing for control of predators in Belgium mainly affects the Grey Heron and the Great Cormorant, although derogations for shooting are also issued (it is now difficult to assess the difference between authorised culling and non-authorised culling). Currently, the rehabilitation centres for injured birds (CROH-CREAVES) alert the authorities to the fact that an increasing number of raptors (Buzzards, Honey Raptors, Harriers, Kites, Hawks, Goshawks and Falcons) and other protected birds are housed in their centres after having been shot, trapped or poisoned. The Belgium Royal League for Bird Protection also denounces falconry as a driver of looting of eggs and chicks in nests. The species most targeted by illegal trade are the Eurasian Eagle-Owl, the Barn Owl, Peregrine Falcon, Kestrel and Sparrowhawk. According to this NGO, another concern despite a 15-year prohibition is tenderie. The last important incident happened in 2008, when the staff from the Nature and Forest Department seized 60 singing birds in the house of a smuggler. The Belgian Government reported with regards to trade that the keeping of protected bird species is rather popular in Flanders/Belgium. This inevitably goes along with trade. While the majority of keepers and traders abide to the law, a small but persistent number of people goes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 57 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
the illegal way. Especially the illegal trapping of a number of finch species for the cage bird trade is still an ongoing activity. Although the scale of it has been much reduced compared to some decades ago and although the impact on bird populations as a whole could be considered rather minimal, at least locally in some areas it can still be an issue. A number of people is annually caught while illegally trapping finches. Illegal trade in eggs has been detected, but on a very small scale. In general this activity is not believed to be an important issue in Belgium. In Wallonia also the detention or breeding of birds as a leisure induce a lot of movements and trade operations concerning living birds of European species. The birds owned for agreement have to be born in captivity, but sometimes are illegally caught in nature.
3.2.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The Walloon, Brussels and Flemish regions and the federal government (marine environment) have specific regulations on nature conservation. Walloon region In Wallonia the Decree on sites and wild species conservation 06/12/2001 and the Walloon governmental decree of 27 November 2003 concerning derogation system to the birds protection are the main pieces of legislation focusing on wild birds and covers most of the provisions of the BD in this region45. Sanctions (Decree 06/12/2001) range from 8 days to 6 months imprisonment and fines from 100 to 100 000 EUR. The Walloon Law of Hunting46 of 28 February 1882 (as amended) presents several articles, which implement the BD. Article 6 prohibits hunting in any way whatsoever, beyond the times fixed by the government. It is also prohibited at all times to remove or destroy, put on sale, sell, purchase, transport or peddle eggs or brood of birds classified as game animals and living naturally in the wild as stipulated in article 5 of the BD. A fine from 5 to 25 EUR punishes violations of the provisions of this Article. Article 12 stipulates that transport for sale of game birds listed in annex III of the BD may be authorised by the government after consultation with the Commission.
Flemish region In Flanders, the Flemish Governmental Decree of 15 May 2009 on species protection and species management (Besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 15 mei 2009 met betrekking toot soortenbescherming en soortenbeheer) and the Decree on nature protection 21/10/1997 are the main pieces of legislation focusing on wild birds and covers most of the provisions of the BD in this region. In the Flemish Hunting Decree (Jachtdecreet van 24 juli 1991)47, article 3 lists all the birds allowed to be hunted in the Flemish region in accordance with article 7 of the BD. Article 34 explains that
45 The texts are available from: http://environnement.wallonie.be/legis/consnat.htm 46 Available from: www.chasse.be/loi-sur-la-chasse-28021882-info-146.html [Accessed 18/7/2011] 47 Available from: www.natuurenbos.be/Home/Natuurbeleid/Wildbeheer/Wetgeving/~/media/Files/Themas/Wildbeheer/Wetgeving/Jach tdecreet/jachtdecreet_03_09_2009.ashx [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 58 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
the Flemish government can take measures to ensure the protection of all wild birds (other than those mentioned in article 3), their eggs and their young. These measures can be addressed to both living and dead birds. Finally, article 35 prohibits the disturbance, removal or deliberate destruction of nests and broods of birds in accordance with article 5 of the BD. In addition, the Decree of the Flemish Government48 on hunting seasons in the Flemish Region for the period from 1 July 2008 to June 30, 2013 gives the dates for small game hunting and waterfowl hunting in articles 4 and 5 respectively. Additionally, the Flemish decree of 5 April 1995 contains general provisions on environmental policy with a Title XVI ‘Monitoring, Enforcement and Safety Measures’ (Environmental Enforcement Decree). This decree includes sanctions for bird offences with fines ranging from 550 EUR to 2 750 000 EUR and/or up to 5 years imprisonment by the judiciary and a fine up to 1 375 000 EUR as administrative fine. In 2011, a person was convicted for illegally trapping and holding 35 birds and illegal trapping material; and was fined of 11 000 EUR (use of violence as aggravating circumstances). Also in 2011, several persons were convicted for illegally trapping and holding a few hundred birds, eggs and illegal trapping material; they were fined of 5 500 EUR, 6 months imprisonment and 65 000 EUR supplemental fine (proceeds of illegal sale). It was reported that the public prosecutors choose more often to send files to the Flemish administrative entity in order to give administrative fines; and that in general, the administrative entity imposes higher fines than the judiciary. Brussels region In Brussels the Ordinance concerning fauna protection and hunting (Ordonnantie van 29/08/1991 betreffende de bescherming van de wilde fauna en betreffende de jacht) is the main piece of legislation focusing on wild birds and covers most of the provisions of the BD in this region. The Ordinance for nature protection (27/04/1995) further protects species). Federal legislation (marine region) For the marine environment, the Marine Environment Law (Wet voor de bescherming van het Mariene Milieu in de zeegebieden onder rechtsbevoegdheid van België) of 20 January 1999, prohibits hunting at sea (art 12§1).
3.2.3 Enforcement and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of enforcement at federal level The national authority is responsible for controlling the import and export of birds. The Marine Environment Unit is the competent authority for the protection of the marine environment, including biodiversity. Hunting at sea is forbidden by law and was reported to not take place.
48 Available from: www.natuurenbos.be/nl- BE/Natuurbeleid/Wildbeheer/Wetgeving/~/media/Files/Themas/Wildbeheer/Wetgeving/Jachtopeningsbesluit/30%20m ei%202008%20- %20BVR%20betreffende%20de%20jachtopeningstijden%20in%20het%20Vlaamse%20Gewest%20voor%20de%20pe riode%20van%201%20juli%202008%20tot%20en%20met%2030%20juni%202013.ashx [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 59 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
The police and customs (mainly Brussels airport) are also involved in investigating illegal activities. The Federal Police has an important role in these illegal activities and specifically the section environment – “DGJ, DJB”. Units in charge of enforcement in Wallonia Nature and Forest Department This department is the regional authority charged with enforcement of the forest code and the laws on nature conservation and hunting. It is responsible for controlling the detention of birds on the regional territory. Enforcement is part of the daily work of the forest agents working on the field. When necessary they can request the support of the anti-poaching unit. The department brings together three directorates: Directorate on forestry resources, Directorate on Nature, and Directorate on Hunting and Fishing. The Directorate on Nature aims to ensure the enforcement of the law on Nature Conservation and the Decree on natural parks. It also co-ordinates all the actions carried out on the territory to ensure the maintenance and the development of biodiversity. Finally, it manages the public protected areas. The Directorate on Hunting and Fishing ensures the enforcement of the law on hunting and the law on fishing. It implements and evaluates the legal texts and participates in the monitoring of the species concerned by these legal texts. Police Department and Control and its anti-poaching unit (UAB)49 The Police and Control Department ("Département de la Police et des Contrôles", part of the Directorate General for Agriculture, Environment and natural Resources of the "Service Public de Wallonie") enforces the laws, orders, decrees and other legal provisions that aim to preserve the natural heritage of the Walloon region by carrying out checks and by performing a policing role. It includes an anti-poaching unit (UAB), put in place in 2003 by the then Hunting Minister. This unit is composed of sixteen FTE which are especially trained for the investigation and repression of illegal activities regarding nature and forest conservation, hunting and fishing. Some of these experts are from the police force. Birds experts from the institute of natural sciences can also be contacted if necessary. Conviction and sanctioning activities In Wallonia sanctions are applied by the courts, but transactions and administrative fines also apply depending on the situation. Units in charge of enforcement in Flanders The Nature Inspectorate of the Agency for Nature and Forests (regional authority on nature protection) is in charge of enforcement activities. The agency cooperates with the police on an ad-hoc basis. The activities of the agency are based on the priorities described in the annual
49 Information available from : environnement.wallonie.be/administration/dpc.htm [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 60 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Environmental Enforcement Programme set by The Flemish High Council of Environmental Enforcement (VHRM). The Nature Inspectorate has 26 full time inspectors. It is financed with the general budget of the Agency for Nature and Forests. If a criminal prosecution is chosen, the public prosecutor is in charge. Otherwise the file is sent to the Environmental Enforcement, Environmental Damage and Crisis Management Division of the Department of Environment, Nature and Energy (Flemish administrative entity), which can impose administrative fines. In appeal, the Environmental Enforcement Court is responsible. Units in charge of enforcement in Brussels The Brussels region employs rangers who watch over the prohibition of catching, killing and trading birds. Seizure of the birds happens in cooperation with the LRBPO (Ligue Royal Belge pour la protection des Oiseaux, i.e. Bird protection Brussels). Hunting is prohibited in the region of Brussels and according to Brussels Environment, no illegal activities happen on this territory. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes In Flanders, the Nature Inspectorate has a dedicated website as part of the general website of the Agency for Nature and Forests50 (only in Dutch). It contains email addresses and phone numbers of the Nature Inspectorate in each Flemish province, which can be used to report all kinds of offences against nature (not only bird crimes). In Wallonia, there is a call centre to report bird crimes: 070/233001 At the national scale, illegal practices on birds are recorded by INBO (Flemish Institute for Nature Conservation). Falconry When the Belgium Royal League for the Bird Protection suspects that a person illegally holds a wild bird, the members of the association come with the anti-poaching unit and if the raptors do not have certified papers and a close ring, they are taken directly to a rehabilitation centre51. Illegal trade The anti-poaching unit has the right to ask a pet shop to provide all the required certificates for sold birds. If the pet shop cannot provide these documents, the animal are confiscated and sent to the closest bird protection centre. Awareness raising In Flanders, the Nature Inspectorate has published an annual Nature Enforcement Report (including general information about bird crimes) since 2009. The 2009 version is available at www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Natuurbeleid/Natuurinspectie/Handhavingsrapport.aspx (only in Dutch) and the 2010 version should be available in September-October 2011.
50 www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Natuurbeleid/Natuurinspectie.aspx
51 Information avalable from : www.lalibre.be/societe/planete/article/641476/la-fauconnerie-ce-patrimoine.html [Accessed 17/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 61 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Measuring effectiveness of enforcement activities Flanders reported that it is unclear how the effectiveness of enforcement activities can be measured. The goal is to change behaviours. In principle knowing whether an offender is caught a second or third time for the same offence is possible, but it is very difficult to measure in what way potential offenders are scared by the conviction and heavy fines of other offenders. Wallonia reported that at regional scale, the effectiveness of the enforcement activities carried out is not measured. The illegal trade cases are often communicated in the media to discourage this kind of activities. Bird protection associations and reports drafted about the issue give an idea of the scale of the issue.
3.2.4 Good practices
In Flanders, a legal system has been created through which: administrative fines can be imposed in case the public prosecutor has other priorities serious damage to livestock by protected species and non-huntable game species can be financially compensated by the government. Besides actually compensating for the damage, the system is also meant to reduce the conflict between landowners and land users on the one hand and the species that cause damage on the other. Since the illegal taking of protected bird species was a big issue in the past and is a relatively minor issue today, it is forbidden by law to even possess certain devices that can be used for bird trapping. They are devices that can in fact be used for hardly anything else other than bird trapping: all types of nets that can be used to trap birds, including mist nets, and all types of cages and traps that can be used for bird trapping. In Wallonia, the existence of the anti-poaching unit and the creation of database with the relevant information helped to reveal several illegal captures of birds. The input of environmental protection NGOs is also important. In Brussels and the marine environment hunting is forbidden by law and was reported to not take place.
3.2.5 Main barriers
Killing for control of predators in Belgium is aimed mainly at the Grey Heron and the Great Cormorant, although derogations for shooting are also issued. It is now difficult to assess the difference between authorised culling and non-authorised culling (Birdife, 2011). In the past in Flanders, there was low awareness by the judiciary or the judicial fines were too low. This has improved, not because the judiciary is more active, but because it is now possible for a public prosecutor to send files to a Flemish administrative entity, which can (and does) impose administrative fines (which are in general higher than judicial fines).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 62 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
In Wallonia, illegal trapping is an occasional and seasonal activity, which is not only practiced by local people but also tourists. There are only sixteen specialised people in UAB and the agents of Nature and forest Department are generally not specifically trained for this kind of crime. Thus, a large share of the illegal activity could be going undetected. Moreover, the courts are usually unaware of species conservation issues and due to the high number of cases they often do not prosecute the offenders. The decree on the conservation of nature has limited the possibility of investigations in homes where birds are held illegally.
3.3 Bulgaria
3.3.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Bulgarian government considers current level of illegal bird killing as an issue of medium importance in its country but pinpoints five illegal activities that occur on its territory: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trade of birds, and killing and capture of protected species. Protected species are affected by trapping and capturing for live sale and personal use as well as intentional poisoning. Accidental poisoning due to the use of illegal products for pest control also has an impact. The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) has reported various issues to BirdLife concerning the illegal killing of birds in Bulgaria: the illegal shooting of predators and protected species, the poisoning of falcons (using pigeons as bait), the use of illegal firearms and means of transport against game and non-game species, and the collection of birds for taxidermy. In recent years it has been proven that illegal trade of rare species (Egyptian Vulture, Bonelli’s Eagle) also occurs, having an impact on some of the most endangered species. Currently there are between 50 and 100 people with a serious interest in falconry, who keep or wish to keep different species of birds of prey. Finally, illegal trapping is probably also a very serious problem.
3.3.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The Birds Directive is implemented through three main texts in Bulgaria: Biological Diversity Act of 2002, Law for Hunting and Protection of Game, and Penal Code. Biological Diversity Act of 2002 The Biological Diversity Act of 2002 contains a section on “conservation of wild birds” (section V). This section (notably articles 45, 46 and 47) is the direct implementation of articles 5 and 6 of the
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 63 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
BD. The prohibited methods of capture and killing are listed in article 44 in section IV “Prohibited Methods, Devices and Means of Capture and Killing”, according to article 8 of the BD. The non-respect of these articles can lead to a fine from 51 to 510 EUR for individuals and from 100 to 2500 EUR for firms. In addition, if violations are committed in protected territories or concerning worldwide protected animal species, the fines are doubled. If a certified hunter commits a violation during hunting, he faces a fine from 51 to 500 EUR and can be deprived of the right to hunt for a period of three years. In addition, if the violation is committed in a protected territory or concerns a protected species, the fine is doubled. Law for Hunting and Game Protection In accordance with article 8 of the BD, this law provides in annex the list of all the bird species subject to hunting. The list of the prohibited means and methods is available in article 65 and article 88 stipulates that anyone who collects and takes bird eggs (subject to hunting), without a written permission for hunting shall be punished with a fine from 25 to 50 EUR, unless subject to a more serious punishment. Penal Code For illegally destroying, damaging, possessing, obtaining or alienating a specimen of protected species, unless a minor case, the Penal Code provides a fine of 1 000 to 5 000 EUR and up to three years of imprisonment or probation. When the violation has been made through negligence, the punishment is a probation and a fine from 500 to 2 500 EUR. The trade of specimens of protected species or their parts and derivatives is punishable by a fine from 1 000 to 10 200 EUR and up to five years imprisonment or probation. In case of negligence, the sentence is lighter: a fine from 250 to 500 EUR. For the illegal destruction, damaging, possession or alienation of a specimen of European or worldwide endangered wild vertebrate species or specimen from protected species52, the sanction is a fine from 2 500 to 10 200 EUR and up to five years of imprisonment.
3.3.3 Enforcement and awareness raising
Units in charge of enforcement Several units are in charge of reporting and monitoring illegal activities in Bulgaria: Regional Inspectorates of Environment and Water, Directorates of the National Parks (Ministry of Environment and Water), and Executive Forestry Agency (Ministry of Agriculture and Food) and its Regional Forestry Offices. The last two units are also responsible for combating poaching and for biodiversity conservation.
52 Phalacrocorax pygmeus, Pelecanus crispus,Tadorna ferruginea, Pandion haliaetus, Aegypius monachus, Gypaetus barbatus, Gyps fulvus, Haliaeetus albicilla, Falco biarmicus, Falco cherrug, Falco peregrinus and Crex crex.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 64 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Once an illegal activity is reported, the competent authorities, the police or the customs, carry out the investigation. If a crime has been committed, public prosecutors prosecute the illegal activities. In the legal system of Bulgaria, liabilities are not shared. The offender is the only person who is responsible for the illegal activities. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes To report bird crimes or birds found dead or trapped, each Regional Environment Inspectorate has a dedicated phone number. Furthermore, each inspectorate has official email addresses. Therefore, these two means of communication can be used by the public to inform the authority of any environmental violations. Awareness raising Concerning awareness raising, The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds has been active in using the internet and posters53.
3.3.4 Good practices
No good practices were identified in Bulgaria.
3.3.5 Main barriers
According to the Ministry of Environment and Water, there is no effective co-operation between the responsible institutions in respect to the protected species. There is a general neglecting of the problem by the local public prosecutors resulting from a lack of knowledge about the relevant wildlife legislation and its enforcement.
53 See for example www.greenbalkans.org/userfiles/file/plakati_big/Plakat_Poini_Ptici_Milvus.jpg
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 65 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.4 Cyprus
3.4.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Cyprus government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of significant importance, which affects protected species and bird conservation. The main illegal activities identified are: trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing using illegal methods, killing during illegal period, involuntary killing by use of illegal products. Song birds are a traditional delicacy on the island (called ambelopoulia) and in neighbouring countries (e.g. Lebanon). The illegal trade and trapping of birds are largely driven by this tradition. The illegal trapping, notably to serve in restaurants, has an impact on both target and by-catch species and on wider conservation issues. Seventy-three bird species are concerned by these illegal practices, since mainly mistnets and lime sticks are used, which are non-selective methods. The use of illegal methods and means of killing is also frequent in Cyprus. The seriousness of illegal birds killing is gradually being recognised in Cyprus: the traffic around bird trapping is considered a serious crime, involving large sums of money. A dozen birds is said to be sold up to 80 EUR in restaurants, thus the business is estimated to be around 5 million EUR a year54. It is part of organised crime, and is no longer considered a traditional activity. It thus requires effective enforcement, coupled with high punishments/custodial sentences. BirdLife Cyprus reported the same concerns: the major issue for the local NGO is also the illegal trapping for human consumption of basically any bird that can be caught in nets or on lime sticks. This activity affects many Passerines but also Bee-eaters, Scops Owls, Nightjar, etc. Poison is used for hunting dogs or foxes but it also affects griffon vulture and raven, which are now almost extinct. Regarding the use of illegal firearms, it mostly concerns firearms that can fire more than two shots, and shooting at night. Illegal trade of birds is reported to be quite important in the BirdLife report, but the Cyprus Government mentioned that data is lacking to estimate such trade.
54 Terra Cypria estimation, presentation at the Larnaca conference: Collateral impacts of trapping on tourism and proposals to overcome them, July 2011, by C. Oruntiotis, P. Koutsofta, A. Yiordamli, available from: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/News/Cyprus/Presentations/TerraCypria_Larnaca_July2011.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 66 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.4.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Two main texts implement the BD in Cyprus: Law for the Protection and Development of Game and Wild Birds (No. 152/2003)55 and Law on the Protection and Management of Nature and Wildlife (No. 153 /2003)56 Law for the Protection and Development of Game and Wild Birds (No 152/2003) This law is the main piece of legislation focusing on wild birds and covers most of the provisions of the BD (especially articles 5, 6 and 8). Articles 14 and 15 include the following relevant provisions: possession and use of nets, lime sticks, lights, traps, poison baits, tape recorders and other game callers, artificial light sources, motor vehicles and any other non-selective method of taking is prohibited, the catching, killing and trade in migratory birds is prohibited and the consumption of illegally obtained birds is prohibited. The violation of these articles is sanctioned by a fine up to 17 000 EUR and/ or three years of imprisonment. Law on the Protection and Management of Nature and Wildlife (No 153/2003) This law also includes some provisions relevant to the BD, although it is primarily an implementation of the Habitats Directive. For listed species under Part A Annex III, article 21 prohibits: deliberate forms of capture and killing; harassment during key periods of the year; destruction or taking of their eggs; use, damage, destruction or disruption of breeding sites; and possession, transportation, sale, or exchanging or offering for sale. It is stated that violations of the provisions of article 21 may be subject to imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 17 000 EUR or both. In the legal system of Cyprus, the claimant has to bear the burden of proof. The persons caught / seen on-the-spot by the enforcement agencies are liable for the illegal activity. However, if nets or limesticks are found without a person being near them, no offender can be caught, as the person must be caught on the spot, making enforcement difficult. The landowner is also liable
55 Available from: clubbretoncyprus.com/docs/law1.pdf [Accessed 1/7/2011]
56 Available from: www.cyprus.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/0/E6401F1120AFA3B4C2256F78003D1638/$file/N.153%28I%29-2003- %20%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1%20%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD%20%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%84%C E%B1%CF%83%CE%AF%CE%B1%20%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%20%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%87%CE%B5 %CE%AF%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%B7%20%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82%20%CE%AC%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%B 9%CE%B1%CF%82%20%CE%B6%CF%89%CE%AE%CF%82.pdf [Accessed 1/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 67 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
when the land area involved is fenced, but many areas in which illegal capture occurs is open land, accessible to all. There are no legal obligations by landowners to report illegal activities. An additional difficulty is the fact that law enforcement is not consistent across the island. The part of the island controlled by the Republic of Cyprus, and the Sovereign Base Area under control of the UK is increasingly working to punish offences, however in the area under Turkish control, it is unknown what actions occur. Illegal trapping on this part of the island is known to provide birds for restaurants throughout the island.
3.4.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
The regulation in Cyprus is considered by most parties to be stringent enough, but still lacks effective enforcement. Significant efforts have been implemented and are continuing to improve the situation. Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The anti-poaching unit the Game and Fauna Department The Game and Fauna Department (part of the Ministry of the Interior) is a special unit (90 staff members) devoted to wildlife protection. This unit, through its game wardens, enforces the relevant BD and its respective national legislation. It cooperates with a special police anti- poaching unit, which is involved in the control of illegal poaching and trapping cases. The anti-poaching unit of the Police The Police (part of the Ministry of Justice) also has a special unit: the anti-poaching unit (10 persons) which deals with wildlife crimes (this includes the wildlife trapping issues, game and the Cyprus mouflon). Both Departments/Units cover the whole island controlled by the Republic. They are in charge of the reporting, the monitoring and the investigation of illegal practices on birds. Increasingly, the units also enforce the regulation by controlling restaurants known for serving ambelopoulia. Thus, they are acting on the demand side as well as on the supply side. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of a crime The general website and the phone numbers of the two relevant agencies (the anti-poaching unit and the Game and Fauna Department) are included in the phone directory, on brochures and on hunting maps given to hunters. Hunters as well as the public can use this contact information to report bird crimes or birds found dead or trapped. Awareness raising
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 68 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Some awareness raising actions are implemented in Cyprus. All new hunters as well as the convicted ones must follow hunting education courses. In addition, the convicted hunters have to pass an examination to obtain again their hunting licence. Awareness raising campaigns are also carried out at schools, however no information is available on their frequency and the exact topic of this action.
3.4.4 Good practices
Very good cooperation exists among the relevant Departments: Game Fund Department and Police anti-poaching Unit. The Cyprus Tourism Organisation is very concerned about the birds issue. The tourism strategy puts emphasis on sustainability and nature tourism, which includes bird watching. The involvement of the media is also very important and contributes to creating awareness with low financial burden. Enforcement improved before the accession process and directly after it, thanks to strong national will to improve the situation. It also benefited from EU support. Since 2005 however, an increase of illegal activities was once again identified by NGOs. While many enforcement actions were taken against trappers, restaurants are still not sufficiently targeted with heavy punishments: no restaurant may be closed for serving protected species according to the Cypriot law.
3.4.5 Main barriers
According to the Game Fund Service, there is a problem of limited human resources for law enforcement. As an illustration, the anti-poaching squad in Cyprus does not have the human resources for ensuring a rapid response at all time, which would be the ideal solution. The CABS (bird protection NGO) in Cyprus reported an average answering time of 3 days, which is relatively long when there is a need to catch people committing bird crimes on the spot (especially since the people cannot be convicted if they cannot be directly linked to the possession or use of the nets). However, this figure may be overestimated, with specific cases taking longer due to lack of personnel, but also cases where areas are under other kinds of surveillance activities. In addition, the authorities are aware that most of the time, judges do not treat trapping and poaching of birds as important crime cases. Another barrier, mentioned during the Cyprus Conference, is political. Some politicians say that they support trapping with the traditional methods (i.e. limesticks). However, it is now recognised that in most cases the crime is completely organised, due to the very high price of ambelopoulia in restaurants. Any traditional aspect is thus lost and ambelopoulia is an illegal lucrative commodity being traded. Concise statements with clear messages, condemning illegal trapping of birds in Cyprus are therefore needed, along with consistent messages from all politicians. Despite the will of some politicians to combat this illegal practice, and spreading messages to raise awareness on the issue, support from all public persons as well as the general public is required.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 69 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
A major turn which is needed is the support from the general public as a whole to condemn and not accept this illegal activity, and treat all offenders, including restaurant owners, as such. In order to combat such practices, it is important to cover the whole chain, from the trapping of birds to the demand side by restaurants. The use of this trapping method will indeed endure as long as demand exists, especially as much money is involved in that demand. Concerning the awareness, a significant part of the public is not fully aware of the impacts of illegal trapping and the seriousness of the impact that their actions or non-actions (by remaining indifferent about the issue) have on global bird populations.
3.5 Czech Republic
3.5.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Czech government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of significance importance, since it is a widespread practice that affects protected species and bird conservation. The illegal practices mentioned by the Czech government are numerous: shooting of birds, illegal area, poisoning of birds, killing of species which are protected, trapping of birds, capture of species which are protected, trade of birds, killing using illegal methods and, illegal period, involuntary killing by use of illegal product.
Among these practices, shooting and trapping for trophies as well as trapping and capturing for live sale and personal use impact the targeted species. Further, poisoning activities (intentional and unintentional) largely affect both target and by-catch species. The Czech Society for Ornithology reports that killing for control of predators is the main purpose of illegal activities in the Czech Republic. Poisoning of birds of prey, such as the White- tailed Eagle, the Kites, the Common Buzzard, other raptors and owls, has increased in the last 10 years. Hunting for sport is usually connected to taxidermy but its importance is so far not concerning. The situation is similar for the illegal trade of cage birds, which has significantly decreased. Since 2000, the Czech Society for Ornithology has been managing the “Free Wings Database”, which includes cases on the illegal killing of birds. The database is unofficial and the collection of the data is not systematic. Nevertheless, it is currently the only information source for estimating illegal bird killing in the Czech Republic. The database includes 174 cases of bird poisoning from 2004-2010, of which 78 cases of poisoning was confirmed by laboratory analyses. The number is supposed to be only a small part of the cases that actually occur. No case was successfully solved and no offender was found and punished.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 70 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.5.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Act No 114/1992 on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape This act transposes article 5 of the BD. It defines the protection of wild birds by prohibiting all type of activities on birds and their eggs. The violation of this Act is sanctioned by a fine of up to 4 000 EUR for a natural person and up to 82 000 EUR for a legal person. Act No. 100/2004 on the Protection of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade57 This act implements article 6 of the BD by regulating trade of wild fauna and flora as well as products derived from animals and plants of species threatened with extinction. The violation of this Act is sanctioned by a fine up to 62 000 EUR for a natural or a legal person. Act No. 449/2001 on Hunting and Game keeping
This act deals with the game management, hunting and related activities in Czech Republic. It implements mainly articles 7 and 8 of the BD by specifying the prohibited ways of hunting (as required in article 7 of the BD) and listing the bird species illegal to hunt and bans any kind of disturbance of birds during their nesting season.
3.5.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Unit in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The Czech Republic does not possess a special unit for wildlife protection. Different authorities carry out reporting and monitoring of illegal activities on birds. The Czech Environmental Inspectorate (CEI) The CEI supervises law enforcement in the area of environmental protection, controls trade with and handling of endangered plant and animal species as well as products made thereof (illegally obtained specimen can be confiscated; the offenders can be fined or imprisoned). CEI has an overview of illegal activities, but does not have the data collected in a comprehensive database. The State Veterinary Administration (SVA) The SVA is responsible for animal welfare and protection and participates in the investigation of bird crime, so has the general overview based on the investigated cases. The Ministry of Environment
57 Available from: www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/pdf/natleg/Act100-2004en.pdf [Accessed 06/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 71 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
The Ministry of Environment works in cooperation with the Czech Environmental Inspectorate and the Czech Society for Ornithology. It also selects veterinarians and aims at having comprehensive knowledge about the cases of illegal killing of birds. The Czech Society of Ornithology The Czech Society of Ornithology manages the “Free Wings Database”, which includes the cases of illegal killing of birds; this database is the only information source for estimating illegal bird killing in the Czech Republic. The police The Police investigates the cases of illegal killing of birds and has an overview based on investigated cases; if any database of cases exists, it is not accessible to other authorities. The State Phytosanitary Administration (SPA) The SPA permits, prohibits and regulates the use of plant protection products, which are often misused for poisoning. Among these authorities, only the Police, the CEI and the SVA can investigate illegal practices. The Police investigates the cases of illegal killing of birds in relation to the violation of the law in common and also in relation to the Criminal Code. The CEI investigates the cases of illegal killing of birds in relation to the violation of the environmental law. In the legal system of the Czech Republic, the claimant has to bear the burden of proof. The offender is liable, and to date there is no known case in which the liability was shared. Illegal activities are not part of legal hunting activities, however this does not mean that illegal activities do not occur in the Czech Republic. Concrete enforcement actions Several awareness-raising actions have been carried out in the Czech Republic. A guideline for police investigations of poisoning has been delivered to the police headquarters. At a larger scale, a handbook and a leaflet about poisoning (mainly by using carbofuran) were distributed to the specialised public, ornithologists, game keepers, state officers and the general public. The Czech government also mentions cooperation with journalists to publish articles in mass media.
3.5.4 Good practices
The Czech government mentioned two good practices. Firstly, the Czech Society of Ornithology created a database of illegal killing of birds cases (note however that the database is unofficial and the collection of data is not systematic). The cases of poisoning are published on the website www.carbofuran.cz. Secondly, the Police Headquarters and the Czech Environmental Inspectorate are preparing the staff training for police officers and inspectors (they took an example from the Slovak colleagues), which would markedly improve the investigation of the cases and strengthen the cooperation between both bodies.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 72 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.5.5 Main barriers
Illegal activities related to birds are very hidden. Thus, it is difficult to find the victims, and footprints of the offenders vanish soon after the criminal activity is committed. Until recently, the key problem in poisoning was the unwillingness of the Police to be involved with the cases. There was a gap in the police enquiry procedure and the Police felt that it was not possible to investigate a suspicious case without a laboratory analysis to prove the use of poison (often carbofuran). However, the time necessary to analyse such evidence is often to remove the footprints. Thus national authorities and the Czech Society for Ornithology appeal to investigate suspicious cases immediately after finding the cadaver or still living poisoned animal. A last barrier mentioned by the Czech government is the lack of funds for the investigations, especially when laboratory analyses are required in case of poisoning.
3.6 Denmark
3.6.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing
The Danish government does not consider the contemporary national level of illegal killing of birds to be of significant importance. Illegal bird killing only occurs to a limited extent with no significant impact on either target or by-catch species nor on wider conservation issues. Nevertheless, the government has noticed three types of illegal activities occurring on the Danish territory: shooting of birds, killing of species which are protected and, involuntary killing by use of illegal products. BirdLife also recognises that, despite several illegal activities against birds in Denmark, their importance is decreasing. The NGO explains that the killing of predators (birds of prey but also competitor species such as crows, gulls) remains the biggest issue. Most of these birds are being poisoned but can also get trapped or shot. From a conservation point of view, goshawk is the main species whose populations are negatively affected both locally and nationally by this type of targeted killing. Because of the very high intensity of hunting activity in Denmark (ducks, swans, geese, waders etc.), BirdLife assumes that quite a lot of protected species are also affected but the evidence is limited. The illegal trade with birds for cage/captivity purposes seems to have decreased in recent years.
3.6.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Several texts implement the BD in Denmark.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 73 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Consolidated Act on hunting and wildlife management of 20 October 2008 (No 1045/2008) 58 This Act provides some recommendations regarding bird hunting aspects and implements a part of the article 7 of the BD. Article 3 stipulates that hunting should be operated only on game set for hunting season and only within the hunting season set for the species. In addition, this article prohibits hunting of birds during the breeding season and during migration to nesting sites as well as during the period from 1 February to 31 August. Finally, this article also mentions that there should not be a hunting season for rare and endangered species. A fine of up to 400 EUR and an imprisonment of up to 2 years sanctions the violation of this Act , however this second sanction has not yet been used. Law on hunting and wildlife management (No 930) 59 This Law also implements a part of the article 7 of the BD. Article 3 indicates that the hunting of birds must address a wise use and must be ecologically balanced. This article also prohibits hunting of birds during the breeding season and migration to the nesting site. Articles 6 and 6a of this law is also the direct implementation of article 5 of the BD. A fine of up to 400 EUR and an imprisonment of up to 2 years sanctions the violation of this Act , however this second sanction has not yet been used. Statutory order on release of game, and hunting methods and hunting gear (No 870/2007) This Order provides the general hunting seasons for a number of game species. Annex 1 of this order gives the list of the game species. As for the two previous texts, a fine of up to 400 EUR and an imprisonment of up to 2 years sanctions the violation of this Act , however this second sanction has not yet been used. Statutory order on commercial trade with animals (pet shops) (No 1022 2002)60 This Order implements a part of article 6 of the BD as it requires a permit for each animal a pet shop sells. This Order also recognises the authority of the police who can carry out inspections with the help of the Regional Food Authority to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (article 25). Control of Trade in Endangered Species Enforcement Regulations (No 338/1997)61 This regulation is the direct transposition of the Washington Convention and of article 6 of the BD. In theory, if this Regulation is not respected, there are no limitations for the fines and the imprisonment can be up to one year. Statutory order no. 634 of 25/6/2001 on the collection of eggs from wild birds and registration of egg collections62
58 Available from: www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/pdf/natleg/Lovbekendtgorelse747dk.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011] 59 Available from: www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=127099#K6 [Accessed 6/8/2011] 60 Available from: www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=1448 [Accessed 6/8/2011] 61 Available from: www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=12548 [Accessed 6/8/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 74 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
This Order implements specifically article 5b of the BD regarding the prohibition of collecting eggs from wild birds. A fine of up to 400 EUR and an imprisonment of up to 2 years sanctions the violation of this Act , however this second sanction has not yet been used.
3.6.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Unit in charge of the enforcement of the regulation In general, the Danish Nature Agency (DNA) is responsible for enforcing the BD. The police, customs and public prosecutor may contact the DNA for advice on facts and to understand the rules. In relation to CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation, all the illegal activities are reported to the European Commission as well as to the CITES secretariat. For the other illegal activities on birds, the rules are enforced by the Danish Nature Agency, which represents the national authority. Investigations for these illegal practices are carried out by the police and customs (which are responsible for border control, notably in case of illegal trade). In cases of infringements of CITES, the Nature agency works closely with the two previous authorities. According to the Danish law, the claimant has to bear the burden of proof and the offender is liable. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes Denmark has no specific website or special phone number to report bird crimes or birds found dead or trapped. Awareness raising As the illegal killing of birds is not a serious issue in Denmark, there are only a few awareness raising activities. Only the press and some organisations of bird protection provide information about this issue.
3.6.4 Good practices
No good practices were recorded in Denmark during the study.
62 Available from: www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=12484 [Accessed 6/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 75 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.6.5 Main barriers
According to the DNA (part of the Ministry of Environment), the main barrier is that there is not sufficient knowledge of infringements.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 76 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.7 Estonia
3.7.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing
According to the Ministry of the Environment, the current level of illegal birds killing is an issue of little importance in Estonia. The Ministry only mentions the destruction of nests without permission of the authorities. It also specifies that illegal trade of birds and eggs is not an issue in Estonia. There are some rare cases of shooting geese illegally to prevent damage to fields or misidentification of birds (and shooting illegal species instead of similar legal species). The main problem is illegal killing of eggs / hatchlings of the Great Cormorant or destroying of their nests. This is a relatively rare problem, and occurs close to some fishing areas.
The Estonian Ornithological Society agrees with the position of the Ministry as it also reports that illegal activities against birds are not common in Estonia. It mentions the killing of birds considered as predators (Cormorants, Goshawks, Buzzards) as the only activity that is increasing and has a relative importance in the country. Cormorants are the only exception where some serious illegal killing exists in some islands or regions, probably by fishermen.
3.7.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Two main texts implement the BD in Estonia. Nature Conservation Act63 of 2004 and sub-act This Act implements mainly articles 5 and 6 of the BD. Article 55 of this Act prohibits the capture or intentional disturbance of the specimens of protected species during the breeding, brood rearing, wintering or migration season (exceptions are provided in article 58). This article also prohibits transactions with the living or dead specimens of wild bird species and their clearly distinguishable body parts or products manufactured thereof, with the exception of the descendants of such birds born in artificial conditions or if the specimens have been killed or legally removed from the wild. Article 85 prohibits the gathering and damaging of eggs of protected bird species. Article 74 “Violation of protection requirements of wild bird and bat species” sanctions Illegal killing or mortal wounding of birds: first protection category: 1 300 EUR per specimen; Illegal killing or mortal wounding of bird in second protection category: 640 EUR per specimen;
63 Available from: www.legaltext.ee/text/en/X90008K1.htm [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 77 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Illegal killing or mortal wounding of bird in third protection category: 320 EUR per specimen; For species which do not belong to protection categories: Illegal killing or mortal wounding of the Grebes, the Sandpipers, the Charadriformes, the Strigiformes, the Stercorariformes, the Columbiformes, the Cuculiformes, the Apodiformes, the Piciformes and the Passeriformes is sanctioned by a fine of 32 EUR per specimen; the Mute Swan is sanctioned by a fine of 64 EUR per specimen; Finally, for the birds not mentioned previously and not protected, there is still a fine of 6,40 EUR per specimen. Hunting Act of 200264 This Act is the transposition of articles 7 and 8 of the BD. In article 40 the list of the permitted hunting and non authorised hunting methods is provided. Hunting with prohibited equipment or in a prohibited manner or in a place where hunting is prohibited is punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units or by detention. The same act, if committed by a legal person, is punishable by a fine of up to 3 200 EUR. This act also prohibits hunting without a hunting permit. This infraction is punishable by a fine of up to 100 fine units. The presence in a hunting district without a permit is punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units. The same act, if committed by a legal person, is punishable by a fine of up to 3200 EUR. Hunting without a hunting permit is punishable by a fine of up to 100 fine units. For both of these Acts, the Environmental Inspectorate has the responsibility for sanctioning.
3.7.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Unit in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The Environmental Inspectorate is the key authority for all the issues dealing with illegal killing of birds. It has 9.4 (equivalent full time) trained officers, working for hunting surveillance of birds and mammals. They monitor, investigate (with the help of lawyers), prosecute, convict and sanction. In the legal system of Estonia, the claimant has to bear the burden of proof and the person liable is the one who carried out the illegal act. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes
64 Available from: www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/tekst.asp?loc=text&dok=X70004&keel=en&pg=1&ptyyp=RT&tyyp=X&query=huntin g [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 78 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
The Environmental Inspectorate has a hotline operated by trained personnel where the public can report bird crimes and birds found dead/trapped.
Awareness raising There are also different hunting related materials online (www.ejs.ee), including bird species information, material for game (and similar non-game) species65 and tracks (includes some birds)66.
3.7.4 Good practices
The government mentions the Estonian hunting permit as a good practice, which provides a good overview of species and amounts hunted. The hunted game must be written on the permit and the Environmental Inspectorate checks the permits during hunts.
3.7.5 Main barriers
As illegal killing of birds is not a big issue in Estonia, no barriers were recording during this study.
3.8 Finland
3.8.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Finnish government did not respond to the two questionnaires sent during the consultation process. Therefore, only the opinion of the associations on birds protection are presented in this section. According to BirdLife Finland, the main issue regarding illegal killing of birds is the killing of raptors, such as Goshawk, Eagle Owl and Golden Eagle. There is also the tradition of destroying nests of some species that hunters consider pests such as the Herring Gull, but it also impacts other avifauna via identification of the eggs. The network of roads for forestry has greatly increased in the last couple of decades, especially in eastern Finland. There are many reports on the shooting of Black Grouse from vehicles available.
3.8.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Two main texts contribute to the implementation of the BD: Hunting Act and Penal code. Hunting Act (615/1993)67
65 available from: ejs.ee/images/stories/ulukid/Veelindude_maaramine.pdf 66 available from: ejs.ee/images/stories/suured/Jaljeaabits.pdf 67 Available from: www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1993/en19930615.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 79 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
This Act is a transposition of article 7 of the BD. It defines the hunting period, lists game bird species, restricts hunting in residential areas, cultivated areas and traffic routes and lists forbidden hunting methods. Section 32, article 8 of the BD lists the prohibited hunting methods, notably the use of poison or baits containing poison, bird glues and nets and the use of live animals as decoys. Penal Code68 Chapter 28 stipulates that a person who unjustifiably hunts in the hunting area of another or fishes or otherwise seeks catch in the fishing waters of another or exceeds the hunting or fishing rights that he/she has on the basis of law, permit, agreement or decision shall be sentenced for a game offence to a fine. In addition, this section also stipulates that a person who deliberately and unjustifiably traps or kills an unprotected animal in an area where he/she does not have the right or permit to do so shall also be sentenced for a game offence. In chapter 48a, section 1, a person who deliberately or through gross negligence unlawfully hunts using an unauthorised method or in violation of the Hunting act shall be sentenced for a hunting offence to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years. On the same topic, section 4 fines a person who hides, obtains, transports, conveys or markets game that has been obtained through a hunting offence or fishing offence, even though he/she knows that it had been obtained in this manner. This person shall be sentenced for concealing poached game to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months. Finally, chapter 48 deals with protected species. A person shall be sentenced for a nature conservation offence to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years if, deliberately or through gross negligence, he/she: unlawfully destroys or impairs an area, an animal, a plant or another natural object protected by the Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996) or protected, restricted or set under an injunction based thereon, or (1108/1996) in defiance of the Nature Conservation Act or a provision or order based thereon, removes from its environment, imports or exports an object or transports an object through the territory of Finland, or sells, conveys, purchases or receives an object so removed, imported or exported.
3.8.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation There are no special units devoted to wildlife crimes in Finland. The police are the main actors to investigate bird crime issues
68 Available from: www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/pdf/natleg/Rikoslaki39-1889en.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 80 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
The National Traffic Police were formed in 1930 to operate throughout the country to prevent smuggling. The National Traffic Police has a department in each province and command units in larger communities. Its main functions, in addition to its responsibility for traffic regulation and vehicle inspection, are to enforce hunting and fishing regulations, and to assist other police units in investigations and catching fugitives. In addition, the local police department can also help in the investigation of bird crimes. This police force is composed of 24 police departments, with 280 service points. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes No website and no hotline have been implemented to report a crime. In addition, no special awareness raising activities were recorded during this survey. Awareness raising As the illegal killing of bird is not a widespread practice, it seems that there is no awareness raising activities in Finland.
3.8.4 Good practices
The status of the golden eagle in Finnish Lapland has improved because reindeer herders are compensated for calves on the basis of nesting pairs in their herding areas.69
3.8.5 Main barriers
No specific barriers were recorded during the project.
69 arcticportal.org/uploads/CS/2z/CS2zL4qwkHnui4WzblR4rQ/OSA_05.PDF
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 81 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.9 France
3.9.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The current level of illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds is considered by the authorities to be an issue of medium importance in France. Reported stakeholders are the poachers and buyers of ornamental bird species. Many birds captured in Northern France are sold on Belgian markets. In Southern France, a decrease of the poaching of ornamental bird species is observed. France reported to the Council of Europe successful implementation of the Birds Directive illustrated in two examples where traditional shooting during pre-nuptial migration is no longer occurring: No more hunting of Turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) in May in the South-West (Médoc), No hunting of the Common Wood-Pigeon (Columba palumbus) in March in cols of the Ardèche. In 2006, an agreement was reached between the hunters, the administrative Authority and the nature conservation NGOs to put a stop to any illegal activity within the next three years. Examples of illegal shooting and poaching that still occur include: shooting of waterfowls outside the hunting period and during the night, in areas where it is forbidden taking of bird species for hobby and ornamental purposes, and poaching of birds for consumption purposes (Robin, Ortolan). According to BirdLife (2009) and based on its French member (Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, LPO), the types of illegal activities against birds in France vary greatly between regions. Nationally, the country is facing many methods and purposes of activities, legal or not, that have important conservation impacts on bird species, such as trapping of passerines for human consumption, the use of stone traps, netting, liming or trapping with playback of waterfowl, the poisoning and shooting of vultures and other raptors and the illegal trade of cage birds. However, France has applied the possibility offered in article 9 of the BD to derogate from the provisions of the Directive (transposed in article L424-4 of the Environmental Code). The decree of 1st August 1986 states that the use of hunting with nets, traps, cages, laces, limes or other methods to trap or kill birds is forbidden unless authorised by the Minister, for migratory birds hunting. On this basis, five ministerial orders of the 17th August 198970 allow in specific conditions
70 Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la capture de l’alouette des champs au moyen de pantes dans les départements de la Gironde, des Landes, du Lot-et-Garonne et des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à l’emploi des gluaux pour la capture des grives et des merles destinés à servir d’appelants dans les départements des Alpes-de-
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 82 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
the use of certain methods of capture. A quota and where relevant the determination of methods per department are set on an annual basis by a ministerial order. In France, hunting is an important activity, with 1,3 million hunters in activity and an economic weight of 2 200 million EUR (French Ministry of Ecology website).France reported that international illegal trade is not widespread in France. A small-scale trade with songbirds exist in Northern France with Belgium. The trade is sufficiently lucrative to not discourage offenders and is an issue that is difficult to identify precisely. Between 2006 and 2010 31 infractions were found, with 371 birds confiscated. However, without acting on the drivers outside the country the traffics will be difficult to stop.
3.9.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Environmental Code The Environmental Code (Code de l’environnement) implements the Birds Directive (Art. 441- 1 to 411-6, L415-3 to L415-5, R411-1 to R411-14 and for the organization of hunting Art. L421-1 to L421-19, R421-1 to R421-54, L422-1 to L422-29, R422-1 to R422-95 and D422-96 to D422-127, L. 424-2 to L. 424-13, R. 424-4 to R. 424-23, in R. 428-1 and R.428-2 including sanctions).. Article L411-1 prohibits various destruction actions on listed species and their habitats, as well as the transport, sale, detention, use, etc. (as specified under Art. 6 of the BD). According to article L411-6, the Government must draft a report, every 3 years, concerning the implementation of the BD, and the derogations given. Sanctions depend on the level of offence and may go from 38 EUR to 1 500 EUR (or possibly 3 000 EUR in case of repetition) for an infraction to a year imprisonment and a 15 000 EUR fine (Art. L415-3). Derogations can be asked to the Préfet (regional authority) and a decision is taken after advice of the Council for the protection of nature. Laws on hunting Many texts are in place to regulate hunting in France, with the successive hunting laws of 26 July 2000, 30 July 2003 and the law of 23 February 2005 on the development of rural territories, and the law on simplification and improvement of hunting laws of 30 December 2008. This situation makes it a complex regulation, with many changes in the last years, but the texts are nonetheless quite clear. The recent modifications underline the balance between agriculture, forestry and hunting and the contribution of hunters to ecosystem management and development of rural territories. Hunting and wild species reserves (réserves de chasse et de faune sauvage) are in place71, as well as hunting plans and a robust definition of areas in which hunting is permitted. Transport and selling of species is now allowed throughout the year for most species, with the
Haute-Provence, des Alpes-Maritimes, des Bouches-du-Rhône, du Var et du Vaucluse, Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la tenderie aux grives ou aux merles noirs dans le département des Ardennes, Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la tenderie aux vanneaux dans le département des Ardennes, Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la capture de l’alouette des champs au moyen de matoles dans les departments des Landes, de Lot-et-Garonne et de Tarn-et-Garonne.
71 In those areas, a hunting plan may be in place but generally hunting is forbidden. Currently more than 20 000 réserve de chasse et de faune sauvage in France (more than 2.25 million ha - source FNC Survey 2009) as well as 9 réserves nationales de chasse et de faune sauvage, covering 31 700 ha, exist in France.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 83 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
exception of certain birds. The law regulates the period of the year in which hunting is authorised, and forbids hunting during reproduction and nidification periods, as well as during the return journey for migratory species. Night hunting of waterfowl is allowed from designated fixed posts (huts, etc.) since 1 January 2000, in listed Departments. The post must be declared and the owner must participate in the maintenance of the waterbody. Other texts Other texts that regulate the protection or the hunting of birds include: Arrêté du 19 février 2007 fixant les conditions de demande et d'instruction des dérogations définies au 4° de l'article L. 411-2 du code de l'environnement portant sur des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages protégées Arrêté ministériel du 10 août 2004 fixant les règles générales de fonctionnement des installations d’élevage d’agrément d’animaux d’espèces non domestiques Arrêté ministériel du 10 août 2004 fixant les conditions d’autorisation de détention d’animaux de certaines espèces non domestiques dans les établissements d’élevage, de vente, de location, de transit ou de présentation au public d’animaux d’espèces non domestiques Arrêté du 30 juin 1998 fixant les modalités d’application de la convention sur le commerce international des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages menacées d’extinction et des règlements (CE) n° 338/97 du Conseil européen et (CE) n° 939/97 de la Commission européenne Arrêté ministériel du 29 octobre 2009 relatif à la protection et à la commercialisation de certaines espèces d’oiseaux sur le territoire national et l’AM du 1er aout 1986 relatif à divers procédés de chasse, de destruction des animaux nuisibles et à la reprise du gibier vivant dans un but de repeuplement, qui liste les principaux engins de chasse prohibés. Arrêté ministériel du 29 octobre 2009 fixant la liste des oiseaux protégés sur l’ensemble du territoire et les modalités de leur protection. Arrêtés ministériels des 24 mars 2006 et 19 janvier 2009 fixant les dates d’ouverture et de fermeture de la chasse au gibier d’eau et gibier de passage. Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la capture de l’alouette des champs au moyen de pantes dans les départements de la Gironde, des Landes, du Lot-et-Garonne et des Pyrénées-Atlantiques,
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 84 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à l’emploi des gluaux pour la capture des grives et des merles destinés à servir d’appelants dans les départements des Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, des Alpes-Maritimes, des Bouches-du-Rhône, du Var et du Vaucluse, Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la tenderie aux grives ou aux merles noirs dans le département des Ardennes, Arrêté du 17 août 1989 relatif à la tenderie aux vanneaux dans le département des Ardennes
3.9.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Hunting police and nature police are under the responsibility of the Ministry for Environment, with its local branches. The fight against poaching and illegal samplings is essentially the task of ONCFS, the military police (Gendarmerie) and customs, but also of the federation of hunters in each department, and authorised private keepers. In addition, in case of organised crimes, coordination is ensured by special services of the national police: the “Office central de lutte contre les atteintes à l’environnement et à la santé publique” (OCLAESP) created by Decree N° 2004-612 of 24 June 2004. In particular, ONCFS agents annually record 2 000 infringements concerning wildlife protection issues (including those related to illegal possession of wild animals) ), out of the 16 000 infringements on other environmental issues. These 2000 infringements include all animal species (birds, mammals, reptiles, etc.), linked to activities of destruction, mutilation or kidnapping of protected species. However, these statistics (average recording over the years 2008 to 2010) do not provide any indication of the number of offences concerning birds. Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation ONCFS (French national agency for wildlife and hunting, Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage) The agents from the ONCFS are responsible for enforcement of nature related crimes. They are an independent, public body, present on the whole territory. Historically, the office dealt only with hunting and was funded privately by the hunters (the same phenomenon is observed in Greece), however since 1972, it has a public statute, with nature protection responsibilities. The office has a budget of 117 million EUR for 2012 to fulfil its diverse responsibilities (surveillance of the territory, environmental surveillance, research studies, technical advice, hunting issues, organisation and validation of hunting license examination). 1739 FTE work for the office, out of which 1400 are field agents. The office undertakes its missions of police with the help of other police units, mainly the military police (Gendarmerie), the water office (Onema), and agents in protected areas. In terms of prosecution, the ONCFS agents have powers, but often require the help of police agents to be able to use all the means available for the prosecution. The ONCFS agents provide
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 85 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
technical expertise to the police in cases where it is required (e.g. species recognition, impacts on protected areas/species). ONCFS is also in charge of monitoring illegal actions. Indicators include the number of infractions concerning fauna and flora, relative to illegal detention of wild fauna (destruction, mutilation or removal of protected species) but all species are counted together. Federation of hunters The national federation of hunters coordinates and represents the regional federations at national level. Hunters have to adhere to a hunting federation in each administrative region (department). Those federations are involved in awareness-raising activities, training, etc. and in prevention and compensation of damages caused by game species. Police and OCLAESP In 2004, the central office for damages to the environment and public health was created. Its main missions include: Coordinating national and operational investigations by the police in the fields of environment and public health, Observe and study the authors and centralise information Advise the police (both “gendarmerie” and “police”, which are two different entities in France) and Ministries Participate in information and training sessions. Forty-four people work for this office. A specific task force “criminal investigations on the environment” work on pollution, protection and fauna and flora (especially protected and regulated species trafficking and phytosanitary product issues) and illegal dangerous and toxic waste trafficking. Judiciary The public prosecutor is in charge of deciding whether to follow-up the constatation of an infraction with judicial sanctions. Concrete enforcement actions Concrete actions carried out by the ONCFS The missions relative to the environmental police of the ONCFS include prevention, research and investigation of infractions, anti-poaching activities, and information of nature users. This duty takes up about 60% the department’s time and services. For this task, the agents go through the territory to identify issues and explain the regulations to nature users. They also have a role of judicial police, and can provide advice and support to the police. Liability for the illegal activities
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 86 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
In France, the burden of proof was recently shifted (200972). Earlier, the authorities had to prove that a specimen was acquired illegally, which was very difficult. Now, it is the person who has to prove that the specimen was acquired legally; and was not taken from the wild. This applies for the whole territory not only of France, but of any of the MS of the EU (if the bird was bought/taken outside of Europe, no further obligation applies). If no proof exists that the specimen was not acquired illegally, the law considers that the specimen was taken from the wild. Only the author of the illegal activity is liable for the activity, outside of particular issues of not respecting the hunting plan. Reporting of a crime The LPO is active in reporting crimes. As an example, in 2006 the judgement of a bird poisoning crime was closely followed by the LPO in Alsace, where about ten buzzards were poisoned. The LPO obtained 1 000 EUR in damages and 300 EUR for covering their expenses. The defendant was condemned to more than 6 000 EUR and to imprisonment (note that the killing of two dogs was also taken into account for this charge). The implication of the LPO often ensures a follow-up of the judicial activities. The network called SAGIR, initially a network for reporting epidemiological issues about birds and wild mammals, and based on the implications of the hunters federations and the ONCFS has widened with the inclusion of the LPO to report poisoning of birds of prey. Specific e-mail addresses are available to report poaching activities to the ONCFS and its local branches. Awareness-raising activities Through the hunting permit, training is offered on which activities are legal or illegal, including training to recognise the species that are allowed to be hunted. This raises awareness of new hunters. NGOs such as the LPO are also very active in raising awareness through different channels including in newspapers. For example, messages to denounce the poaching of Ortolans are in place, especially in the Aquitaine region.73 According to LPO, the price of one Ortolan on the black market is between 100 and 150 EUR (2004 data). Slightly more awareness-raising activities linked to CITES are in place, that include bird species, but budgets are lacking to implement larger campaigns. Newspapers also report existing illegal cases. For example, the South-Eastern regional newspaper Var Matin74 reported a case of poaching where the prosecutor required fines up to 6000 EUR, 2 months of imprisonment (for the landowner) and not allowed a hunting permit for a year. The ONCFS reported the suspicion of illegal activity, while the presumed poachers claimed
72 According to the following text : Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 fixant la liste des oiseaux protégés sur l'ensemble du territoire et les modalités de leur protection
73 See www.lpo.fr/communique/braconnage-du-bruant-ortolan
74 See www.varmatin.com/article/actualites/correctionnelle-chasse-illegale-aux-petits-oiseaux-a-signes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 87 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
they were playing ball-trap, even if the evidence shows that the machine was not plugged in, dogs were out, etc. An issue on whether the ONCFS agents were allowed to enter the premises may prevent the trial from going further. No further information on the follow-up was found in the newspaper. Evolution of sanctions
Nature police Hunting police (any fauna-related illegal activities) Number of sanctions have increased, from 266 sanctions have decreased, sanctions convictions (2007) to 296 and 299 (resp. from 1 773 convictions (2007) 2008 and 2009) to 1 632 and 1 596 (resp. 2008 and 2009) Mean fine 327 EUR (2007), 616 and 410 EUR (resp. 334 EUR (2007), 294 and 331 2008 and 2009) EUR (resp. 2008 and 2009) Maximum fine 867 EUR (2007), 1 833 EUR (2008), and 1 100 EUR (2007), 1 000 EUR 800 EUR (2009). (2008), and 1 500 EUR (2009).
The main offences concerning birds are hunting at illegal periods, use of lead munitions in wetlands, not respecting protected areas.
3.9.4 Good practices
The French Ministry for Environment highlighted the continuous reinforcement of legislation and regulations, the implementation of the possibility of fining by using a easy-to-use system, called “timbre-amendes” (i.e. the fined person buys a specific “stamp” to pay the fine, making the process easy and quick) and organisation of common missions between ONCFS and ONEMA. ONCFS has led awareness-raising campaigns, in particular in Camargue, targeting both judiciaries and hunters. The shift in the burden of proof (see paragraph above) could be a best practice to spread.
3.9.5 Main barriers
Several periods for which hunting is open apply for different species. Thus if the season is open for species A and closed for species B; species B can be killed (illegally or by mistake) earlier. In terms of enforcement, such killings are very difficult to identify as the hunters are allowed to be hunting, so either a controlling agent finds the bird of species B in the hunting bag, or the kill will not be detected. Similarly, if protected species are killed during a legal activity, identification of the crime is very difficult. In Northern France, where a specific type of hunting, in huts, is carried out, legal issues regarding private properties arises because ONCFS agents may not be able to inspect those huts, making enforcement difficult.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 88 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
As in many other countries, human and budget resources are low compared to the responsibilities of the agents. At ONCFS, an increasing number of environmental areas are becoming the responsibility of the office, making specific enforcement activities difficult. The French Ministry for Ecology also reported the low priority of wildlife crime by judicial authorities, too low sanctions, especially in regard to the profits made and inaccessibility of sites on which the offences are performed. A further barrier is the lack of agreed information on the illegal activities going on. Indeed, NGO information is generally said to be unreliable, but even official data from ONCFS are not necessarily accepted by all parties.
3.10 Germany
3.10.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The magnitude of illegal killing of birds in Germany is unknown. NABU concludes in the BirdLife study for the COE that the main issue in Germany is the illegal trapping, poisoning and shooting of all species of predators: all birds of prey, all corvid species and recently cormorants. Another increasing problem is the shooting of protected wild geese species. The recent work of the task force on environmental crime (see section 4.4) in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia indicates that coordinated action leads to a rising number of cases that had previously gone undetected or had not been punished due to a lack of enforcement activity. Centralised data collection in Brandenburg, where cases of bird mortality are systematically recorded and analysed, has produced interesting results as well.
3.10.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz – TierSchG) The law on animal welfare is important because illegal killing of wild birds falls under the jurisdiction of this law. It fulfils the criteria for a criminal offence, since the law prohibits the unjustified killing of any vertebrate (chapter 17, section 1 Tierschutzgesetz “Tötung eines Wirbeltieres ohne vernünftigen Grund”). Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz – BnatSchG) The aim of this law is to protect nature and biodiversity, more specifically to protect wild animals, plants and their communities as well as their biotopes and habitats, taking into account their functions in the ecosystem. Each German state (Bundesland) maintains an agency responsible for conservation. The authority on the national level is the federal office for nature protection (Bundesamt für Naturschutz or BfN). All persecution of birds, including the trapping or killing of birds of prey or other protected bird species is – according to point 71 of the federal law for nature conservation (BNatSchG 2009) in conjunction with point 69 Abs. 2 No.1, 44 Abs. 1 No. 1 – a punishable offence (Straftat).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 89 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Deliberately disturbing, capturing, injuring or killing animals without reasonable grounds is prohibited. The species listed in annex V of the Habitats Directive may not be taken from the wild. Part 3 relates to species specifically under strict protection. The law provides for prison terms of up to five years, depending on the violation, or a fine – higher in the case of strictly protected species, but the fine may be reduced if the person had not identified the animal as a member of a strictly protected species. Federal Species Protection Ordinance (Bundesartenschutzverordnung – BartSchV) This ordinance, the federal decree on species conservation, includes a list of protected species. Chapter 1: Species listed in annex 1 column 1 and marked with a “+” are under special protection; those in column 2 marked with “+” are under strict protection. Living animals under strict protection may not be traded, kept, raised or given to third parties (Article 3). Prohibited methods of attracting, capturing and killing animals are listed in article 4. Derogations may be given in certain cases. Chapter 2: People who make commercial use of products obtained from protected animal or plant species must keep precise daily records of quantities acquired and sold. States can decide on specific provisions. Chapter 3: Protected (and certain potentially invasive) vertebrates can only be kept under certain conditions, including that their keeping is not prohibited by other regulations and that the person has adequate knowledge and facilities for their care. Chapter 4 describes methods for identifying individual animals. Chapter 5 describes violations, including attracting, capturing and killing animals using illegal methods, violations linked to the recordkeeping required by chapter 2, etc. Federal hunting Act (Bundesjagdgesetz – BjagdG) The federal hunting law defines the right to hunt and lists the species it covers. With regard to bird species, it refers to the Birds Directive. Each state may add or drop huntable species. In the case of nominally huntable species for which there is no hunting season, such as birds of prey, point 292 StGB (Strafgesetzbuch German Criminal Code) and point 38 of the federal hunting law thus define illegal killing as poaching. The law describes limits on hunting, the duties of hunters and what constitutes disturbance of wildlife. Forbidden methods are listed (specific rules may be made by the states). Disturbances to wildlife through prospecting for minerals, filming and photography or similar actions is prohibited, especially for endangered or threatened species. Some species may only be hunted according to a plan (quota), and hunting of a species in a certain area may be prohibited when its population falls below the number considered viable for that area (Article 21). Hunting seasons are determined by the Ministry, with approval from the federal council (Bundesrat). Where no season is defined, a species may not be hunted. No parent animal may be hunted during periods of reproduction or the raising of young.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 90 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Hunters must pay compensation for damage (generally to forestry and agriculture) caused by wild animals. Article 38 describes sanctions. Imprisonment for up to five years or a fine may be imposed on a person who violates the prohibition on hunting locally endangered wild species (see Article 21), who hunts out of season (Article 22), or who does not respect the prohibition on hunting animals occupied in raising young (Article 22). In cases of negligence, the term may be up to six months or a day-fine of up to 180 daily rates75.
3.10.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Implementation and enforcement of the law take place at the state level, with each Bundesland maintaining its own ministry of the environment or agriculture and its own police forces. The German government supports implementation through its relevant institutions (point 3 to 5 BNschGS). Local and state police and public prosecutors investigate known incidents of illegal killing. Concrete enforcement actions by state Baden-Württemberg Based on data collection from veterinary inspection offices and NABU recovery stations (Krauß 2011) the number of wild birds killed illegally was low and stable through the end of 2010, although there was an unknown number of undetected cases. In early 2011, the number of cases increased dramatically – to 36 in January alone from fewer than 12 in the entire previous years. NABU defined the poisonings as a new dimension in bird crime in Baden-Württemberg, and the Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg (LUBW) reacted immediately. Before the month of January was over, the Minister for Environment, the Minister for Agriculture and nature conservation, hunting and animal rights organisations had signed a joint memorandum against the illegal persecution of birds.76 Bavaria The agency responsible for bird conservation is the Staatliche Vogelschutzwarte (state bird conservation centre), a department within the Bayer. Landesamt für Umwelt (state office of the environment). Since 2009 cases of bird mortality are collected and analysed with help of the Technische Universität München (TUM). A first report is under preparation. Brandenburg In Brandenburg, the State Bird Conservation Centre, a department in the State Office for the Environment, has been conducting long-term investigations of bird mortality since the early 1990s. The documentation of several thousand casualties highlights various issues in bird
75 In Germany fines are calculated in daily rates, which depend on the income of the person that is punished. 76 www.mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/mlr/Naturschutz/Stuttgarter_Memorandum_Greifvoegel.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 91 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
conservation. Anthropogenic causes of mortality are most important for most species (Langemach et al. 2009). The programme also monitors problems caused by power lines (electrocution and collision), wind energy, roads and railways, illegal persecution, baler twine, and chemical pollution. There are technical or other means available to combat many of the problems, including changes in legislation. Among other issues, acute poisoning from lead shot, which is still legal, has been determined to be a major threat to Germany’s population of white- tailed eagles. Niedersachsen In Lower Saxony, the agency Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten- und Naturschutz is responsible for nature conservation. To help prevent illegal killing and promote enforcement, the agency distributed a good information leaflet for taxidermists. The leaflet describes how different bird species must be handled to avoid bird crime. 77 Nordrhein-Westfalen The task force on criminal activity related to the environment and consumer product safety (Stabsstelle Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzkriminalität) in the Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz of North Rhine-Westphalia is coordinating work on issues related to bird crime (see the focus on the Stabsstelle in section 4.4).
3.10.4 Good practices
Task force and public-private partnership in NRW The model implemented in North Rhine-Westphalia to coordinate the work of administrative agencies, law enforcement and NGOs is considered in Germany to be a good practice. The success of the Stabsstelle Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzkriminalität is well known (see section 4.4). Joint declarations It is important that all stakeholders work together on behalf of bird conservation and take joint action against bird crime. In Germany, two declarations against illegal killing have been signed by all stakeholders: The Düsseldorfer Erklärung against illegal raptor persecution was signed in August 2005. Its signatories included NRW’s Minister of the Environment, Nature Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (MUNLV), the NWO, BUND, NABU, the Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz (umbrella organisation of environmental organizations in NRW) and the Landesjagdverband (NRW’s hunting association)....78
77 www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/servlets/download?C=14497740&L=20 78 www.dfo-nrw.de/pdf/resolution.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 92 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
The Stuttgarter Memorandum gegen illegale Verfolgung von Greifvögeln in Baden-Württemberg against raptor persecution was signed in January 2011.79 Both cases are considered exemplary because hunting organisations lent their support to stopping the persecution of birds of prey. Monitoring Illegal killing of birds cannot be detected without monitoring. A good example is the recent increase of cases in Baden-Württemberg. To detect such causes of mortality as baler twine, sophisticated, long-term programmes like the one conducted in Brandenburg are important. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the excellent cooperation among state institutions and NGOs has allowed insight into hitherto unknown aspects of bird crime (Hirschfeld 2010). Awareness Programmes Illegal Killing The brochure Illegale Greifvogelverfolgung - Ein Leitfaden für Naturfreunde und Behörden80 published by a consortium of organizations is considered to be the best current tool to promote monitoring and prevent illegal killing of birds of prey in Germany. Written for both witnesses and investigators, it explains how to handle dead birds and other evidence, explaining the issue with many pictures and excellent examples. Illegal Transport On the federal level, the programme of the Federal Agency for Nature Protection in cooperation with the Bonn Convention (CMS), Lufthansa and several NGOs is interesting. In addition to a brochure, a film has been produced for broadcast during flights and was also sent to interested travellers in order to reduce smuggling of protected species from holiday destinations81.
3.10.5 Main barriers
Programmes for monitoring bird mortality like that in Brandenburg lack adequate funding, so that not all cases can be investigated. Similar programmes have not been established in all German federal states. Only in NRW has a task force (the Stabsstelle) been established to coordinate monitoring and enforcement activities. It has been suggested in several interviews that such a coordinating body is needed in every state to enforce the Birds Directive and stop illegal killing. Coordinated action by such task forces could bring bird crime under control. At the moment, coordinated actions even inside Germany are hindered by a lack of coordinators at the state level.
79 www.mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/mlr/Naturschutz/Stuttgarter_Memorandum_Greifvoegel.pdf 80 nrw.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nrw/natnw/leitfaden_illegale_greifvogelverfolgung.pdf
81 www.cms.int/publications/pdf/lufthansa_cms_flyer_gm.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 93 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.11 Greece
3.11.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
In Greece, the current level of illegal killing of birds is considered an issue of medium importance by the authorities. These illegal practices affect mainly the protected species and impact bird conservation. The government has noticed the following types of illegal activities occurring on the Hellenic territory: trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing using illegal methods, illegal periods, illegal areas and, involuntary killing. Compared to the opinion of the Hellenic authorities, BirdLife is more acute. The Hellenic Ornithological Society reports that the illegal activities against birds are a widespread practice, which has an important impact on many species in Greece. According to this association, the main activities are: poisoning of raptors, illegal trapping and illegal trade for falconry and cage birds and, the shooting of birds for leisure/vandalism. According to NGOs however, the situation is much better than in many other Balkan areas, where illegal killing of birds is a more serious problem. Hotspots of illegal activities still exist, e.g. in the Aegean islands traditional hunting activities are in place, but the scale of the issue has been significantly reduced.
3.11.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The Joint Ministerial Decision Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the BD are implemented through the Joint Ministerial Decision (HP 37338/1807/E103 -Official Journal no 1495/B/2010)82. This decision lists in annex all species for which hunting is allowed as well those for which hunting is prohibited. For all species which are not included in the respective lists (mainly migrating species), hunting is prohibited de facto.
82 Available from: www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=D%2b4%2fqXkJssQ%3d&tabid=538&language=el-GR (Accessed 22/8/2011)
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 94 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Hunting is permitted only as a recreational activity and therefore the trade of game is not allowed.
According to this description, hunting must respect the population of huntable species of birds living on the Greek territory and in particular migratory species. During periods in which the survival of bird species is threatened, hunting shall be exercised under a protection regime. In this respect, hunting is prohibited during reproduction and nesting periods. Regarding migrating species, hunting is prohibited during breeding seasons and during the return of the species to their rearing grounds. The decision also imposes limitation on the methods, instruments and facilities that may be used for the hunting and capture of birds. Specifically any hunting practice that can potentially lead to non-selective capture or killing and that can cause local extinction of a species is prohibited. For the following infractions: intentional killing or capturing of wild species by any means, use of illegal hunting practices, intentional removal and total or partial destruction of nests and eggs, collection of eggs from the natural environment; possession, keeping in captivity, exposure to common view and embalming of species whose hunting is prohibited; deliberate disturbance of species and illegal trade of species. The offender risks a fine between 500 and 1 000 EUR as well as an imprisonment of up to one year. The penalties are doubled when the affected species are protected species.
3.11.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Hunting in Greece is regulated by the Ministry for environment, energy and climate change. However, the system is mainly organised by the hunters themselves. The Hellenic Hunters Confederation funds a special force that enforces the regulations concerning illegal hunting activities, the Game Guard Body. Hunters also have an important weight in political decisions, including for instance the management of SPA (special protected areas), in which hunters are very much involved. The Game Guard Body The Game Guard Body was established at the end of the 1990s and is funded by the hunters’ subscription fees. This organisation is entirely devoted to the safeguard of the Greek fauna from poaching. The country's hunting federations presently employ 219 permanent hunting guards and 120 seasonal guards. These hunting guards have been placed all over the territory to ensure
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 95 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
effective guarding of the most inaccessible and inconvenient areas. These guards are equipped with special vehicles and modern equipment. Thus, they are able to work collectively and more outside the narrow limits of Prefecture and control, preventively and repressive, night and day, in difficult and particulars areas. They must: undertake controls, denounce any illegal action which may cause damage or destruction to the hunting fauna, and participate with the appropriate preparation in measuring projects of the hunting populations. Forest services They are responsible for reporting, monitoring and law enforcement. This authority has 157 regional and local departments. These departments report (on a yearly basis) all the illegal activities in their territory. Concrete enforcement actions In the Ionians Islands, which are popular hunting grounds, especially in the Spring and Autumn, visitors are urged to report complaints to the Tourist Police if they witness any illegal hunting. Earth, Sea & Sky (a local NGO dealing with bird protection) actively campaigns for law enforcement in Zakynthos, and is going to present a petition to the Minister of the Environment and Prefecture of Zakynthos. In ten years, the Game Guard Body has carried out 944 512 controls in the field. Among these controls, only 16 816 acts of illegal activity has been reported. This portion represents less than 2% of total controls. Among these infractions, the following were related to birds: non-respect of bag limit (47 recorded cases), shooting in areas with shooting prohibitions (1135 recorded cases), shooting in closed period, shooting by unauthorised person and, shooting of protected species.
3.11.4 Good practices
According to the NGO Earth, Sea & Sky, the best ways to oppose the illegal hunting is to extend the tourist season and promote bird watching, and rambling activities throughout the Ionian, which is home to some spectacular birds. Sustainable tourism such as this would create jobs off- season and provide an alternative to uncontrolled hunting.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 96 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.11.5 Main barriers
The fact that investigation and monitoring of the poaching and other illegal activities are managed by the hunter themselves can present a bias. An independent authority is missing for the accomplishment of this task. The Greek NGO ANIMA indicated on a poster during the Cyprus Conference a rising number of rare and threatened raptors shot after the beginning of the hunting season and during the hunting season.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 97 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.12 Hungary
3.12.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing
The Hungarian government considers the current level of illegal birds killing as an issue of significant importance since it is a widespread practice in this country. Several illegal activities occur on the Hungarian territory: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trade of birds, killing and capture of species which are protected, killing using illegal methods and, involuntary killing by use of illegal products The major illegal activity that still clearly may have a population-scale effect on several species is poisoning. Between 1998 and July 2010 all together 124 intentional and 18 accidental wildlife poisoning cases have been reported in Hungary (see Figure 3-1), and the number of undetected cases is undoubtedly much higher.
Figure 3-1 Number of noticed wildlife poisoning cases in Hungary between 1998 and July 2010 (MME BirdLife Hungary, also reported by Hungary in its report to the Bern convention). Nevertheless, according to the government, these numbers represent just the tips of the iceberg because it is estimated that in average, less than 15% of all poison deaths are reported. Illegal trapping and shooting have been reported to occur in the case of the Goshawk at pigeon cages and pheasant farms. Occasionally, shooting of specimens or at nests (destroying whole clutches) also occurs. Illegal shooting and/or transportation through the country of songbirds and other
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 98 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
small birds also occurs occasionally, primarily by foreign (mainly Italian) hunters, usually in late summer – early autumn, as evidenced by some cases when such transports were caught. Most of these transports, however, originate from other countries, with Hungary only being a transit country. The situation is similar in the case of illegal trade of birds intended for the pet market, where Hungary is usually a transit country. According to BirdLife, the main problem in Hungary is the poisoning of raptors for the purpose of predator control. The NGO has reported an exponential increase of the frequency of this activity since 2005. Shooting nests of raptors and corvids also happens. Protected species of waterfowl are shot intentionally or because of misidentification.
3.12.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Act on Nature Conservation Nature conservation legislation is mainly based on Act on Nature Conservation (No 53/1996), which implements mainly article 5 of the BD. Governmental Order No 33/1997 provides the list of the sanctions for the activities prohibited in the previous text and Act No 159/1997 deals with more specific issues on the Hungarian ranger service. Governmental Order on Trading, Keeping , Utilising or Exhibiting Protected Species of Animals Governmental Order No 348/2006 on Trading, Keeping, Utilising or Exhibiting Protected Species of Animals is the main implementation of CITES and article 6 of the BD. Other Acts relevant for the implementation of the BD Act No 55/1996 on the Protection of Game, Game Management and Hunting also implements article 5 of the BD since it prohibits illegal hunting. It also implements article 8 of the BD by prohibiting the use of illegal equipment or method to trap or kill game. Act No 4/1978 on the Criminal Code identifies crime against nature and environment and their sanctioning. Under article 281, it is a crime to illegally acquire, possess, trade with, bring into the country, take out of the country, transit through the country, damage or destroy any specimen of a strictly protected species or a number of specimens of protected species whose total monetary value identified by separate law reaches the lowest monetary value of a strictly protected species (360 EUR). The violator of this law is to be punished by imprisonment up to three years, in qualified cases (destruction of large number of specimens, whose monetary value reaches 7 300 EUR) up to five years. Some minor offences to the natural heritage are also defines in Act No 49/1999 on Petty Offences: for example, the destruction of specimen(s) of protected species whose total monetary value remains below the lowest monetary value of a strictly protected species. The penalty is a fine up to 550 EUR. In addition, the specimen is confiscated.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 99 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.12.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The National Park Directorates The Ministry of Rural Development is on top of the hierarchy for nature conservation. Within the Ministry, the Junior Minister for Environment is responsible for environment, nature and water affairs. The Department of National Parks and Landscape Protection under the Junior Minister is the supervisory authority of the Hungarian Ranger Service. The ten National Park Directorates (NPD) in the country are responsible for the management of protected areas in terms of nature conservation and protection, and are the first degree authorities in petty offences against provisions of laws in nature protection. The Ranger Service is incorporated into the organisation structure of the National Park Directorates. The jurisdiction of a National Park Directorate is divided into a few larger units of landscape-scale. Each landscape-scale unit is then divided into smaller units; these are called districts and are the operational unit of one ranger. Local governments are also authorised to employ rangers (organisation is separate from NPDs, but there are few examples). Civil nature guards also exist (more than one thousand) and they help the rangers on a voluntary basis (they get also special training and operate under agreements with the NPD). The duties of the ranger service include the protection of nature conservation areas of national importance as well as the protected natural assets (e.g. protected plants, fungi and animals). Rangers control laws concerning nature protection are respected by civil or legal persons. When they notice an offence, they can initiate an official procedure at the NPD, the Inspectorate or the Police. This work can result in the imposition of a fine or other kind of penalty. The National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water The National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water is the second degree authority authorised to proceed with appeals in these three sectors. The ten Regional Inspectorates for Environment, Nature and Water operate in regions that do not overlap and in total cover the whole country (but are not the same regions as those of the NPDs). They are the regional first degree authorities (permitting and sanctioning in the field of environment, nature and water). In the legal system of Hungary, the claimant has to bear the burden of proof. Landowners are not responsible for illegal activities detected on their land. Persons organising legal hunting operations are responsible for illegal activities during hunting. All persons are obliged to report on illegal activities if such activities come to their knowledge. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes Personal mobile phone numbers of colleagues of Ministry of Rural Development and regional inspectorates for environment, nature and water are known by Custom Services. In practice in several instances BirdLife Hungary, as a country-wide known bird protection organization, is contacted by people, and they indirectly notify the authorities on the crime cases. MME (BirdLife
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 100 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Hungary) operates a special Hot-Line (+36/20-251-44-04) and a special email address ([email protected]) to report the cases since 2008. Concrete actions carried out by the rangers During their work, rangers are authorised for the following restrictive official measures: holding up and personal identification; checking their clothes and luggage; holding up cars and checking the load and persons; arresting persons caught in the act of crimes or resisting against the ranger’s measures and to apply physical force and other means; retaining illegally obtained natural assets and also to hold back tools used by the committer to obtain these and; imposition of a fine Awareness-raising A leaflet called ‘The illegal trade in wild birds for food’ for the general public was published by TRAFFIC/WWF Hungary (www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_birds2.pdf). TRAFFIC/WWF Hungary also published a CD-ROM called ‘Vigyázz a madárra!’ for enforcement authorities on the legal provisions on hunting in Central-European countries. Another leaflet called ‘How can you hunt in Hungary?’ was published on the legal provisions about hunting in Hungary and the identification of the most important huntable and protected species for the foreign hunters in five foreign languages, published by the Hungarian Hunters Association. In addition, the experts of public administration give lectures for enforcement bodies, but also for the wider public (e.g. universities), and there are several exhibitions on this issue (NPD visitor centres).
3.12.4 Good practices
Life programme on the Imperial Eagle MME BirdLife Hungary has submitted a grant application to LIFE+ Nature. This project will start in January 2012. It will aim to tackle illegal poisoning of birds and will focus specifically on the Imperial eagle. In addition to several national park directorates, associated beneficiaries include the National Bureau of Investigation and the Hungarian Hunters’ National Chamber. Bringing these partners on board for a common project is already a success in itself, even if there is no decision yet by the European Commission on financing of the project. An Anti-Poisoning Round Table was organised in April 2008 by MME (BirdLife Hungary). It provides a framework for mutual exchange of ideas. National park directorates and MME BirdLife
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 101 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Hungary organised awareness-raising events afterwards. Possibly, as a result, the previously sharply increasing trend of illegal poisoning incidents halted or was even slightly reversed. Training implemented by CITES officers The regular training of customs officers by CITES officials has been very successful and has recruited a large number of conservation-minded, enthusiastic supporters of conservation issues among the customs officers. This has contributed greatly to the fact that today Hungary is mainly a transit country of illegally killed birds rather than a source country. Better supervision for the foreign hunters When foreign hunters are hunting small game species including birds in Hungary, the Hungarian partners are obliged by law to notify the competent regional inspectorate for environment, nature and water 48 hours prior to the hunt.
3.12.5 Main barriers
With the extension of Schengen zone to Hungary, border controls no longer exist along several of the borders. This lack leads to a difficulty for detecting bird crimes. In addition, the low awareness of the local police in some cases as well as the weak enforcement by judges (letting foreign criminals leave the court to defend themselves from their home country, then disappear and become practically impossible to sanction) also appears as an important barrier to reduce illegal practices on birds.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 102 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.13 Ireland
3.13.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing
The Irish government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of medium importance, which affects protected species. The government reported the following illegal activities: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, killing of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected and, involuntary killing by the use of illegal products. According to the NGO BirdWatch Ireland, radio tagged birds have highlighted the issue of the use of meat based poisons targeting birds of prey. At regional level, some records of large-scale raptor poisonings exist but the recording of activities is inconsistent across regions and there is no national level database for collating poisoning records. No data exists for illegal egg collection, apart from some records at regional level, but it is suspected to be a significant issue given low levels of monitoring on nesting sites. Hen Harrier primarily is being targeted by shooting and by nest destruction on Hen Harrier SPAs that may have potential for wind energy. Limited evidence is available, but clear indications are given through missing pairs of birds, reduced productivity and local knowledge.
3.13.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Wildlife Act of 1976 Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the BD are mainly implemented through the Wildlife Act of 197683 and amended Act of 200084, in part IV (Wildlife Conservation and Protection). Sections 22 and 23 of chapter 1 (Protection of Flora, wild birds and Wild Animals) ensure the protection of wild birds and define the open seasons for certain protected wild birds respectively. In chapter II (restrictions to protect wildlife), section 28 provides a general restriction concerning hunting or killing with firearms, exempting wild mammals and certain protected wild birds.
83 Available from: www.internationalwildlifelaw.org/WILDLIFEACT1976_1.html [Accessed 8/9/2011]
84 Available from: www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2000/a3800.pdf [Accessed 8/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 103 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Section 35 prohibits sale, purchasing and possession of certain perching birds, and provides restriction to certain use of scarecrows, birdcalls and call of wild mammals, according to article 6 of the BD. Finally, section 74 provides the list of the penalties for a person guilty of an offence under this act. In the case of a first offence, the penalty is a fine of up to 575 EUR or up to three months of imprisonment or both. In the case of a second offence, the fine is up to 1 150 EUR and the imprisonment term cannot exceed six months. In the case of third or subsequent offences, the offender can be submitted to a fine not exceeding 1 750 EUR and 12 months of imprisonment.
3.13.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation A member of the Garda Sýochana or an authorised person who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence under any provision of the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, may, at all reasonable times, stop and search any person who is suspected by such member or authorised person, as the case may be, of being in any way concerned in the offence; and require the person to give his name and address and to declare and, if such member or authorised person, as the case may be, considers it necessary to produce on demand for examination. Actions that aim to protect species by disturbing, capturing or relocating them can only be conducted under a licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is their responsibility to protect each species and their habitat and therefore any licence issued for mitigation work is issued on a site-specific basis depending on the species and impacts involved. The National Parks and Wildlife Service manages the Irish State's nature conservation responsibilities under National and European law. Concrete enforcement actions When people suspect a wildlife crime has been committed, they may contact their local Guarda station or National Parks and wildlife Service office, taking note of all relevant details such as location, date, time, vehicle registration and other details but they have for instruction to never approach. Thanks to the Countryside Alliance Ireland85, a national NGO, people can now report a wildlife crime by completing a questionnaire, which is logged and followed up by the relevant authorities.
85 Website available from: www.caireland.org/ [Accessed 25/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 104 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.13.4 Good practices
A good practice is the collaboration with the Scottish government. The Scottish and Irish governments have agreed to a partnership to work together to tackle the illegal poisoning of golden eagles, white-tailed eagles and other birds of prey in both countries86. Organisations are already working together in some areas on the conservation and protection of bird of prey populations; and the Scottish and Irish police forces have been sharing expertise in detecting and enforcing wildlife crime.
3.13.5 Main barriers
No main barriers were recorded in Ireland during this study.
3.14 Italy
3.14.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Italian government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds as an issue of medium importance. In the first questionnaire sent for this project, the following illegal practices were reported: involuntary killing by the use of illegal products. shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing or capture of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected, killing using illegal methods, illegal periods and areas, exceeding hunting bags volume, and capture for sale of bird of prey chicks Among these practices, trapping (for personal use and live sale) and poisoning impact bird conservation and notably the birds of prey. According to the report to the Bern convention, deliberate killings operated by ‘professional’ poachers are less numerous and restricted to some geographical areas, and almost invariably
86 http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2010/07/21/raptor-poisoning-irish-partnership-to-help-scotlands-birds-of-prey/
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 105 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
associated to traditional hunting practices banned in Italy since decades. In the Alps, the main illegal activity is catching passerines during post-breeding migration, through the use of traditional catching systems (trammel or drift nets, birdlime, traps, clap-nets) or more recently mist-nets. There is evidence of these illegal killings, again originating from traditional hunting forms, also in Sardinia and in the northern Apennines, namely in Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany, where the activity extends during the wintering period. In this report, deliberate killing of spring migrants was also reported. This illegal practice affects mainly small passerines as well as doves and still occurs on small Mediterranean islands, along the coast of the southern Tyrrhenian Sea, and particularly on the islands of Campania, Latium, and Sicily. Deliberate shooting of raptors during spring migration is still ongoing on the Straits of Messina, especially on the Calabrian side. Particularly important is the killing of quails during spring migration. Birds are tape-lured during the night and then shot or mist-netted. This activity has spread widely along the Italian coasts, and it is particularly diffused in southern Italy and along the Adriatic coast from the southern tip to the Po plain. Finally, BirdLife appears more alarmist than the government and considers that illegal activities against birds are widespread and have major conservation impact on many species in Italy. The main occurring activities they report are: the use of illegal firearms, the illegal trade for falconry and cage birds, the illegal trapping of passerines for human consumption, the poisoning of raptors and, the shooting of any birds for leisure/vandalism.
3.14.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Law on general provisions for the protection of wild fauna and the regulation of hunting activity The BD is implemented into national law under Law No 157/1992 on general provisions for the protection of wild fauna and the regulation of hunting activity87. The law states that the Directive and its annexes are fully transposed under the manner and terms of the law. Under article 3 for example, all forms of catching and capture of wild birds and the removal of eggs, nests, and young is prohibited in conformity with article 5 of the BD. The law also imposes the following sanctions for violations of its provisions: imprisonment for three months to one year, or a fine of 930 to 2 600 EUR for those who do not respect the hunting ban period (i.e. between closing date and opening date); imprisonment for two to eight months or a fine of 775 to 2 065 EUR for the capture or possession of listed birds;
87 Available from: www.italcaccia.toscana.it/leggi_nazionali/legge157-92.htm [Accessed 1/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 106 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
imprisonment for up to six months and a fine of between 465 and 1 150 EUR for those hunting in certain areas, such as national parks; imprisonment of up to a year or a fine of 775 to 2065 EUR for those engaged in bird catching; a fine of up to 1 150 EUR for striking, capturing, or possessing birds for which hunting is not permitted, or for those who practice hunting without authorisation; and imprisonment for two to six months or a fine of between 516 and 2 065 EUR for those who put wildlife on the market or hold them for that purpose in violation of the law.
3.14.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Law enforcement is realised by the police corps depending from district administrations (Polizia provinciale), by the rangers of natural parks and by the national authority: the CFS (Corpo Forestale dello Stato). The Forest Police The Corpo Forestale dello Stato88, the Italian State Forest Police, is the largest and most committed environmental police force in Europe. More than 20 000 forest police officers are based in more than 1 000 barracks throughout Italy. They monitor compliance with nature and environmental legislation, combat the illegal wildlife trade and oversee the Italian National Parks and nature reserves. A total of 18 special units are concerned with several specialist aspects of nature protection. The Nucleo Operativo Antibracconaggio (NOA) aims to combat poaching. The Nucleo Investigativo dei Reati in Danno agli Animali (NIRDA) aims at prevention and suppression of violation of animal welfare. The Provincial Police They operate in only some of the 109 provinces of Italy. Their main duties are to enforce regional and national hunting and fishing laws but they have also expanded into wildlife management and environmental protection. The Game wardens
88 Information available from the website: www3.corpoforestale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/36 [Accessed 12/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 107 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Italian nature conservation and wildlife protection organisations are permitted to appoint selected members as state game wardens. The most important qualifications for obtaining a game warden licence, in addition to passing the relevant examination, are the possession of Italian citizenship and a clean police record. The tasks of the game wardens include: checking of hunting license and other necessary permits and papers, monitoring of the number and species of animals and birds killed, checking of weapons and ammunition, confiscation of hunting bags, weapons and ammunition in the case of breaches of regulations of criminal acts, confiscation of traps, nets and other forbidden equipment and, issue of written warnings, cautions or fines for illegal acts or minor violation. Their tasks specifically exclude making arrests, conducting searches of private property or traffic controls. Consequently, the game wardens work in close cooperation with the different police organisations, in particular the forest police. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of bird crimes There is no hotline or website devoted to the report of bird crimes in Italy. Success of the game wardens The game wardens in Italy achieve remarkable results. In the course of a single year, they run checks on up to 500 hunters, collect thousands of traps and nets, confiscate dozens of hunting weapons, and on average more than 10 000 rounds of ammunition snares. As a rule, they impose fines to the tune of between 30 000 and 50 000 EUR – which of course benefits the state budget. Awareness raising action The NOA is active in all hot spots of migrant bird trapping in Italy. In Calabria (Southern Italy) they monitor the ban on spring hunting, in the Po Delta (Central Italy) compliance with hunting restrictions are checked and in Brescia (Northern Italy) traps and nets are seized.
3.14.4 Good practices
Long term programmes for poaching repression operated by Corpo Forestale dello Stato (CFS, National Forestry Service) with the support of local administrations and NGOs have allowed for the considerable reduction and in some cases have stopped the killing and the catching of protected birds. These operations were carried out in both southern (Straits of Messina) and northern Italy (mainly on central and eastern Alps). Recently, a LIFE project was started in the Gran Sasso National Park (central Italy) to prevent the dissemination of poisoned bites by dogs trained to discover poisons. The project is still ongoing but the first results are promising.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 108 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
A trade of rare raptors in Sicily, with an extended network in Italy and Europe, has recently been stopped.
3.14.5 Main barriers
There is a scarce perception of the real dimension of the problem by the authorities responsible for hunting control and nature conservation. Hunters lobbies work for maintaining the present situation of low territorial control and therefore a reinforcement of hunting control would lead to a decrease in political consensus in some local communities and among hunters. There is low investment in activities devoted to raising awareness among relevant actors and public opinion, and to setting up and sharing best practices for nature conservation. In some regions, bird trade and poaching activities are controlled by criminal organisations. The large numbers of derogation, which are permitted on regional level, make the situation and monitoring of bird crime extremely difficult. As illegal methods are sometimes legalised, there is no clear implementation of the BD and illegal and cruel killing methods are clearly prohibited.
3.15 Latvia
3.15.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Latvian government did not answer the questionnaires , but reviewed this section. The analysis of the main illegal activities occurring in this country is mostly based on the BirdLife report. The NGO LOB reports illegal activities against birds are rare and do not threaten species conservation. However, cormorant and white tailed eagles are getting killed for the ‘control’ of predators and some waterbirds get shot during the hunting season, such as Crested Grebe, Grey Heron, Herring Gull etc. Almost all birds killed illegally are shot.
3.15.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
In Latvia, the BD is mainly implemented through three main texts. Law on the conservation of Species and Biotope Section 11 of this law entitled “Prohibited Activities with Animals of the Specially Protected Species, including Birds” is the transposition of the article 5 of the BD. Hunting Law89 Section 24 of the chapter IV on “Illegal Hunting” is the transposition of the article 8 of the BD as it lists all the prohibited means, tools, methods and techniques of hunting.
89 Available from: www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/pdf/natleg/HuntingLawen.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 109 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Code of administrative violations of the Republic of Latvia Article 78 deals with the violation of the species and habitat protection regulations. For violation of the rules of protection of species and habitats stated in normative regulations, penalties from 14 up to 700 EUR with confiscation of the plants/animals of the especially protected species or their parts obtained illegally is applied to physical persons and from 70 up to 1400 EUR with confiscation of the plants/animals of the especially protected species or their parts obtained illegally. For actions committed without permission that is required according to normative regulations concerning species and habitat protection or creating collections of wild animals or infringement of the conditions stated in the corresponding permission – a fine from 30 up to 700 EUR is applied to physical persons and from 70 up to 1400 EUR to juridical persons. Article 79 deals with the violation of the normative regulations of international trading of rare or endangered species of plants and animals and their parts. For violation of the normative regulations of international trading of rare or endangered species of plants and animals and their parts, a fine from 70 up to 140 EUR with confiscation of illegally obtained rare or endangered species of plants and animals and their parts is applied to physical persons, and from 140 up to 1 400 EUR with confiscation of illegally obtained rare or endangered species of plants and animals and their parts to juridical persons. Article 80 deals with the violations of hunting regulations. Penalties for physical persons range from 28 EUR up to 350 EUR, and from 70 EUR up to 700 EUR for juridical persons. In the case of illegal hunting fines range from 42 EUR up to 700 EUR with confiscation of the tools used in committing the violation and the violation gear, or abrogation of hunting rights for a period of up to three years and confiscation of the equipment used in committing the violation and the violation articles. Criminal Law The Code of administrative violations of Latvia, Criminal law gives the list of penalties for different criminal offences against the environment. Section 113 deals with blasting and other acts committed in violation of provisions for protection of animals. For a person who commits blasting, amelioration of land, preparation of timber or other actions in violation of provisions regarding protection of animals, if substantial harm is caused to birds or other wild animals by such actions, the applicable sentence is deprivation of liberty for a term not exceeding three years, or custodial arrest, or a fine not exceeding fifty times the minimum monthly wage. Section 115 deals with destruction and damaging of animals and plants under special protection of the state. For a person who commits destruction or damaging of animals, plants, mushrooms or lichens which are rare or under threat of extinction, or of the life habitat (biocoenosis) thereof, if substantial harm is caused thereby, the applicable sentence is deprivation of liberty for a term not exceeding six years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred and twenty times the minimum monthly wage.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 110 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.15.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The State Forest Service The State Forest Service (SFS) is the major hunting authority in Latvia. The Hunting Department of the SFS Central Office coordinates the supervision and control of hunting activities of the SFS territorial units. The Nature Conservation Agency The Nature Conservation Agency ensures implementation of unified nature protection policy in Latvia. Its main functions are to: carry out the cooperation with local authorities, tourism entrepreneurs, non-governmental organisations and education institutions to promote nature conservation, carry out the functions of supervision of the Convention on International Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) including issuing the permission for importing and exporting protected animal and plant species, educate and inform the society about nature conservation. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes Latvia does not have a special hotline or website dedicated to bird crimes reporting. Awareness raising As illegal bird killing is not a widespread practice in the country, there is no awareness raising action targeting on this issue.
3.15.4 Good practices
No good practices were recorded in Latvia.
3.15.5 Main barriers
No main barriers were recorded in Latvia.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 111 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.16 Lithuania
3.16.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Lithuanian government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of no significant importance. The following illegal practices are reported: illegal shooting of birds and illegal period. In addition, none of these activities seems to have an impact on bird conservation or wider issues. The Lithuanian Ornithological Society observes an increasing trend in killing predators such as the Great Cormorants and to a lesser extent birds of prey. Ducks and geese are getting killed for human consumption. Collecting bird specimen for taxidermy treatment is also happening. Killing of adult birds as well as chicks and eggs of birds which are considered a nuisance and damaging to buildings (the Common House Martin, the Rook, etc.) is quite widespread. Killing of starlings and other "berry-eaters" (Trushes, etc.) also seems quite common in Lithuania (Birlife report, 2011). However, the Lithuanian government does not share the statement of this NGO. Taxidermy treatment is considered very rare. Concerning the Rooks, the government reports only solitary cases in Lithuania when local municipalities obtained the special permission from the Ministry of Environment to destroy their colonies in the central squares of the city or in the cemetery. In the case of the destruction of Common House Martin nests, the government presents also a different point of view, considering that some solitary cases may exist but that is not a wide issue in Lithuania. Finally, the government considers that the killing of starlings and other “berry-eaters” may sometimes be an issue in the countryside, but at very small scale. These differences of point of view between the government and the NGO highlight the problem of the acceptance of common data between the different stakeholders.
3.16.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Law on Wildlife of 6 November 1997 (No 108/2726)90, amended on 22 June In conformity with the article 6 of the BD, article 13 of this law prohibits wild animal trade unless legal and natural person obtains a permit institution appointed by the Ministry of Environment (such institution at the moment is Environmental Protection Agency).
90 Available from: www.internationalwildlifelaw.org/LithuaniaWildlife.htm [Accessed 15/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 112 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Rules on Hunting in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania 91 The section IX of this text entitled “Hunting prohibited activities” gives the list of the prohibited tools and methods of hunting in conformity with article 8 of the BD. It also implements article 7 of the BD by prohibiting the hunting of birds which are not included in the game birds according to the hunting regulations and finally also prohibits the collect or destruction of eggs and nests in accordance with article 5 of the BD. Administrative Code In article 301 of the Administrative Code “Breach of legislation regulating hunting”, it is stipulated that for killing of fauna species for which hunting is prohibited, the penalty can be from 145 to 290 EUR. Article 312 of Administrative Code, entitled “Illegal use of wildlife resources”, stipulates that fines for illegal trapping, killing and collecting protected fauna species are from 30 to 290 EUR. Fines for illegal trapping, killing, and collection of wild fauna species are from 30 to 145 EUR. Fines for the breach of the Rules of trade of wild fauna is from 30 to 290 EUR. The level of fines is increasing. The MoE prepared the amendments of the Administrative Code and suggested that the fines for example under the article 301 should be from 580 to 1450 EUR. These amendments will come into force from the beginning of 2012. MoE Order “Methodology how to calculate the damage done to Lithuanian protected species and their habitats” (No. D1-621; 15 July 2010); In Lithuania the requirement to indemnify the damage done to nature also exists, therefore poachers must not only pay the penalty for illegal activity, but also to compensate damage to nature. There is a MoE Order “Methodology on how to calculate the damage done to Lithuanian protected species and their habitats” (No. D1-621; 15 July 2010); and there is Governmental Order “Methodology on how to calculate damage done for fauna, flora and fungi species which are listed in Lithuania Red data Book and to their habitats” (No. 233; 24 February 1998). In the Governmental Order the penalties for killing of birds listed in Red Data Book are: Category 0 (Ex): 435 EUR; Category 1 (E) and 3 (R): 290 EUR; Category 2 (V): 230 EUR; Category 4 (I) and 5 (Rs): 145 EUR. The rate of fines for the destruction of nest is double. The fine rate for killing of juveniles is the same as for an adult. The fine rate for destroying eggs is half of basal rate. Basal penalties are tripled (multiplied by 3) if the bird listed in Red Data Book is killed or his nest is destroyed in the protected area (nature reserve). The MoE Order also determines the penalties for the killing of bird species that are not listed in Red Data Book, but listed in the list of EU importance (according to Birds and Habitats Directives):
91 Available from: www.infolex.lt/ta/91288?ref=3 [Accessed 15/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 113 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
60 EUR for bird from Anseriformes and Galliformes tribes ; 145 EUR for bird from the Strigiformes and the Falconiformes tribes; 145 EUR for bird from the Ciconiiformes tribe 60 EUR for other birds. Basal fines for killing of bird species that are not listed in Red Data Book and in the list of EU importance include: 60 EUR for bird from the Anseriformes and the Galliformes tribes; 145 EUR for Mute Swan and Bewick’s Swan; 145 EUR for bird from the Strigiformes and the Falconiformes tribes and; 15 EUR other birds. Fine rates for the killing of juveniles or destroying eggs are the same as for an adult bird. All money from penalties for breach of nature protection legislation are transferred to a special Environmental Support Program account.
3.16.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Special units for wildlife protection Lithuania has two special units for wildlife protection: the Fauna Use Control Division of the EPA and the Wildlife Protection Inspection Unit. The Fauna Use Control Division of the EPA includes seven staff members. The Wildlife Protection Inspection Unit exists in eight Regional Nature Protection Departments (RNPDs). Each unit contains one such Unit, with the exception of Klaipeda RNPD, which contains two such Units. The number of specialists (EFT) in these Units varies from 5 to 10 (depending on the area controlled). These two special units are financed by the State budget. Specialists from these Units often organises joint raids with the police officers. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Regional Nature Protection Departments (RNPD) At the national level, EPA monitors illegal activities. At the regional level, the RNPDs, under the Ministry of Environment, collect information on illegal killing and trapping and provide information to the Fauna Use Control Division of the EPA. EPA and RNPDs investigate activities related with illegal killing and trapping.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 114 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Customs Department The Customs department collects information on the attempts of illegal export/import activities. With the help of EPA, which issues CITES permission, this department also controls which exported/imported wild birds species are officially granted CITES permissions.
Nature Protection Inspectors Nature protection inspectors but also police officers and customs officers (in the cases of illegal export/import) can fine the poacher. The poacher can pay the penalty voluntarily, but if he refuses to do this, the inspector sends information about the breach of law to the Prosecution Service and the prosecutor organises appeal to court for convicting and sanctioning. In the Lithuanian legal system, the claimant has to bear the burden of proof. Landowners on which lands the illegal activities are carried out are not responsible if they do not know about such activities, but if they noticed the illegal activities, they should inform competent authorities (nature protection inspection or police officers). Such duty to inform competent authorities about illegal activities is based on goodwill, because only in the Constitution is it written that every citizen must conserve nature and nature resources. The person organising a legal hunting activity during which illegal activities are carried out must report illegal activities. The organiser of the legal hunting can be punished according to the Administrative Code (penalty from 30 to 115 EUR), but in practice, this sanction is very rarely used (usually the person who carries out the illegal activity is penalised, but not the organiser of the legal hunting). Concrete enforcement actions There is no website, e-mail address or phone number dedicated specifically for bird crimes. On the websites of RNPDs and EPA, people can find phone numbers (office and mobile) as well as e- mail addresses of inspectors working in the Wildlife Protection Inspection Units and they can inform them about poaching. In practice, people usually call the police and then police officers inform nature protection inspectors. Concerning awareness raising, there is no formal reports or guidelines dealing with illegal birds killing and trapping, as it is not an important issue in the country. There are only published leaflets about CITES convention requirements (scanned leaflet is attached in the separate file). Every year (once per year), MoE organises training courses for nature protection inspectors. During these trainings, specialists from various MoE Departments (lawyers, environmental impact assessment specialists, biodiversity specialists, etc.) and EPA divisions teach inspectors about the newest legislation amendments, how to apply requirements of legal acts in different practical situations, etc. During these trainings specialists are speaking about hunting issues and trade of wild fauna and flora (CITES requirements). The Customs Department periodically organises trainings for custom officers about Rules on Trade of Wildlife and invites biodiversity specialists and CITES requirements experts from MoE or EPA.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 115 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.16.4 Good practices
It is difficult to determine good practices because the illegal birds killing, trapping and trade is not a problem in Lithuania (only very rare single cases). There are no relevant traditions (such as egg collection, taxidermy, birds for cages, etc.) in the country. One of good practice examples can be the annual training seminar for nature protection inspectors.
3.16.5 Main barriers
The main barrier is the lack of human resources (in some regions); there are not enough nature protection inspectors to control large territories and also due to the financial crisis in recent years, nature protection inspectors do not receive enough fuel for transport.
3.17 Luxembourg
3.17.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
In Luxembourg, the authorities consider that the current level of illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds is of no importance in the country. The authorities also transferred the questionnaire to BirdLife Luxembourg, who stated that bird trapping occurs, although rarely. According to the authorities, trade is not an issue in Luxembourg, nor are there other specific international issues. Similarly, the BirdLife study (2011) states that Luxembourg was amongst the countries for which no or only marginal problems with illegal killing of birds was reported, so no further details are provided.
3.17.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Law of the 19th January 2004 The Birds Directive is mainly transposed in the law dealing with nature and natural resources protection (Law of the 19th January 200492 as amended), and codified in the Environmental code. Articles 17, 20, 25, 27 and 28 are relevant for the protection of birds. Article 17 protects the habitats of the species enlisted in Annexe 1 of the BD. Article 20 refers to protected animals (including birds) and implements article 5 of the BD. Those species are not allowed to be disturbed, captured, detained or naturalised regardless of their development stage. Intentional destruction, collection, keeping, damage or destruction of species and habitats are prohibited. Whether alive or dead, protected species, at any development stage are not allowed
92 Available from: www.legilux.public.lu/leg/textescoordonnes/compilation/code_environnement/VOLUME4/PROTECTION_NATURE/PR OTECTION1.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 116 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
to be kept in captivity, purchased, transported, imported, exported, exchanged or offered. Article 25 refers to the respect of international conventions protecting animals and plants. Article 27 refers to unprotected wild animals, and forbids certain operations, including destruction, capture and holding in captivity, as well as trade (including hybrids of wild and domestic animals). Article 28 refers to disturbance, in application of article 5d of the BD, but extends the prohibition to wildlife in general. Sanctions are foreseen that may include fines of up to 750 000 EUR and 6 months imprisonment. The implementation of this law is specified in Regulation on integral and partial protection of certain animal species of wild fauna (9 January 2009). Law on hunting The Law on hunting (2011)93 determines the conditions for hunting in Luxembourg. In particular, the law regulates the species, areas, timing and methods allowed for hunting (with some specifications by regulations). Punishments are foreseen in cases of contravention to the law, with imprisonment sentences between eight days and two years and fines between 25 EUR and 30000 EUR (three categories of punishments are foreseen depending on the gravity of the situation). Only three bird species are allowed for hunting: Common Pheasant, Mallard Duck, Common Wood Pigeon. Thus the law implements articles 6, 7 and 8 of the BD.
3.17.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation A regulation94 identifies the experts that can investigate violations of laws or regulations in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and Flora (the recital only mentions CITES-related regulations). Those experts are: Engineers from the Nature and Forest administration (nature protection services) Engineers from the administration of technical services for agriculture (plant protection services) Veterinary-inspectors from the veterinary services administration Nature and Forest administration The Nature and Forest administration is a public administration in charge of several missions, including biodiversity protection and sustainable use of hunting resources. The administration includes a mobile entity (Entité mobile) which covers a broad range of nature and wildlife protection topics. Five persons work in this entity, which has a budget of about 10 000 EUR/year.
93 www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2011/0111/a111.pdf#page=2 94 Grand ducal regulation of the 21th April 1989 appointment of experts to investigate violations of laws or regulations in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and Flora (Mem. A - 33, May 26, 1989, p. 602), available from: www.eu- wildlifetrade.org/pdf/natleg/Reglement21Avril1989Expertsfr.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 117 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Police, customs and the Luxembourgish Courts of Justice The police and customs are also involved in both reporting and monitoring of illegal activities, the prosecution is done in collaboration with the public prosecutor and conviction and sanctioning with the Luxembourg Courts of Justice.
Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of a crime No specific website or phone number is in place to report environmental crimes linked to birds. Awareness raising While the mobile entity covers activities linked to bird illegal killing/trapping and trade, it was reported that control is limited and most investigations concerning birds are delegated to the specialists of the Luxembourg-Nature-and-Bird-Protection-League (LNVL), a NGO with which they are collaborating intensively. Liability for the illegal activities noticed Landowners that benefit from biodiversity subsidies may lose them in case of illegal activities carried out on their lands.
3.17.4 Good practices
No good practices were recorded in Luxembourg during this survey as the illegal killing of birds is an issue of no importance in this country.
3.17.5 Main barriers
For the same reason than those presented in the section above, no main barriers were recorded in Luxembourg.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 118 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.18 Malta
3.18.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
During the Cyprus conference, the reaction obtained from the hunting bodies concerning illegal hunting of birds was denial. Illegal bird killing still remains a big issue in Malta. No information was obtained from the Maltese government who did not report to the Bern convention. The issue of the illegal bird killing has only been reported by the NGOs, notably BirdLife Malta. According to this association, trapping of wild birds, particularly finches (Greenfinch, Goldfinch, Common Chaffinch, European Serin, Siskin, Linnet, Hawfinch) and four other species (Turtle Dove, Common Quail, Song Thrush and Golden Plover) has been a popular activity for many Maltese men for years95. The trapping of the above-mentioned finches was not opened by the Maltese government in 2009 and the trapping of the four other species was permitted only during a certain period. Trapping of wild birds using clap nets and live decoys is also a very effective method of catching birds in Malta. Not only does this practice have serious impacts on breeding populations of the target species (such as finches) in Malta but it also has a significant effect on valuable and protected habitats because trappers clear vegetation, in many cases by burning or using toxic herbicides, to open space for their nets. Additionally, the issue of illegal hunting is a serious problem, with poachers specifically targeting raptors (birds of prey) and Herons as well as rare migratory birds such as Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus, Black Stork Ciconia nigra and Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia among others. Spring hunting is notably an important issue, with the European Court of Justice having ordered Malta not to open the season in 2008 and the Commission renewed legal action against Malta over spring hunting in October 2010. The NGO International Animal Rescue Malta also reported that songbirds are occasionallyimported from Sicily (Italy), or the UK.
3.18.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations of 2006 Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations of 2006 96provides the primary implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta. Regulation 4 implements article 5 of the BD. Regulation 5 concerns hunting and therefore implements article 7 of the BD. It also describes the seasons during which hunting is prohibited and how the Regulations apply to migratory species. Regulation 6 implements Article 6 of the Directive, and states that “no person shall import or export, sell, transport for sale, keep for sale or offer for sale live or dead birds or any recognisable
95 www.birdlifemalta.org/photos/otherfiles/3541.pdf 96 Available from: faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlt63115.pdf [Accessed 9/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 119 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
parts or derivatives of birds protected under these Regulations”. Article 12 reasserts this provision, and states that hunting is only permitted if the person is in possession of a valid hunting licence. Finally, Regulation 7 implements Article 8 of the Directive. It lists the methods that cannot be used to hunt or take, or attempt to do so, any bird, and prohibits the sale, offer for sale, exhibit for sale or keeping of any device, the use of which is prohibited by the regulation. Regulation 8 allows finches to be captured using traditional clap-nets for the purpose of keeping them in captivity, in accordance with intermediate targets set out in “the Treaty”. However, this regulation was negotiated for a five year period and expired at the end of 2008. Since 2009, the Accession treaty (signed by Malta in 2003) has to be honoured and the previously mentioned practices of trapping are now prohibited. The Act states that any person who commits a fine under Regulation 4 will be liable to a fine of 116 to 2 330 EUR on conviction. Persons committing offences against any other regulation will be liable to a fine of 116 to 11 650 EUR for a first conviction. Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations of 2006 Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations of 200697 implement other aspects of the BD, but are not concerned with Articles 5-8 of the Directive.
3.18.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The police force that deals with illegal hunting and trapping crimes in Malta is the Administrative Law Enforcement Unit (ALE), a special force within the police and the inspectors from MEPA, the environment authority in Malta. There are around 25 officers from ALE to deal with incidents in Malta and Gozo, and in the summer, these officers are restricted mainly to beach patrols. During peak migration periods, ALE has between two and five cars to cover both islands of Malta and Gozo. In 2008 and 2009, the Police Commissioner sent out an order for district police to also deal with illegal hunting incidents. While this move is welcome, the majority of the district police are not sufficiently trained to deal with this type of crime and in many cases do not know what is or isn’t illegal, nor how to deal with wildlife crime scenes. They are not given proper training nor education on the importance of protecting wild life. In certain areas where poaching is rampant, the district police either does not respond to calls or poachers are seen to leave the area shortly after the incident is reported to the police. Police have access to the inspectorate within MEPA, who are considered as wildlife experts. Judges are not specially to rule on wildlife crimes but most of the cases are decided by the same judge who worked in the field for a considerable number of years.
97 Available from: www.mjha.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=11550&l=1 [Accessed 9/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 120 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes Citizens have to call the Administrative Law Enforcement Unit when they want to report a bird crime. Awareness raising Meetings held with trappers show that there are several alternative activities to trapping that are of interest to many trappers. These range from captive-bird breeding, bird-watching, nature photography to scientific bird-ringing. The BirdLife Malta office receives numerous reports of illegal hunting and trapping from members of the public and law-abiding hunters who are reluctant to pass the information on to the police. The reasons given are either that the police will not respond to their reports, or that they know that there are many hunters within the police force and that they do not feel that the police will arrest these individuals.
3.18.4 Good practices
The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater project98 is a very good example of a good practice. This project aims to study and protect the Yelkouan Shearwater, a seabird, at their largest colony on the Maltese islands. With an estimated 10% of the world population breeding in the Maltese Islands, the Maltese archipelago is a very important place for these seabirds. By spreading information on the conservation concerns and legal status of trapping, the EU LIFE+ Project on Bird Migration and Trapping aims to facilitate the full implementation of the Birds Directive with respect to bird trapping. The setting up of an administrative law enforcement unit within the police force was a step in the right direction, even if resources are lacking (see barriers).
3.18.5 Main barriers
One apparent main barrier in Malta is the extremely low number of police in charge of the BD enforcement. The ALE has fewer than 30 officers working in shifts, and only a handful of vehicles, to monitor the Maltese countryside where there are over 15 000 licensed hunters and trappers. It also has numerous other duties and responsibilities throughout the year. While not all trappers break the law, it is clear that the 30 police officers cannot monitor effectively such a large population of hunters and trappers across the country. They cannot pursue all those involved in illegal activities or take appropriate action to secure effective prosecutions. It is therefore essential to increase the resources, training and equipment available to the ALE, ideally by
98 Available from: /www.BirdLifemalta.org/photos/otherfiles/3541.pdf [Accessed 9/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 121 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
establishing a dedicated wildlife crime unit. Such a unit would be able to deal with illegal activity not only during peak migration periods but also throughout the year, by focusing on intelligence- based policing. In some cases, members of the public claim that the poachers themselves are police or are relatives of the police. While this cannot normally be verified, on the 18th of April 2008, a BirdLife Malta Spring Watch team in Gozo filmed two poachers hunting in the closed season and wearing balaclavas to conceal their identity. When the poachers were apprehended, one was identified as a policeman from Malta. The police officer was convicted last year thanks to BirdLife Malta evidence. In Malta, intimidation of the NGOs taking actions against illegal activities leading to bird killing/trapping occurs in certain cases. The derogation on spring hunting was used by the hunters to extend the bag limits and shoot protected species (BirdLife Malta Monitoring report Cyprus Conference). In order to control illegal hunting, a short hunting season is necessary and a ban on hunting during the return period to save birds are needed for reproduction in Europe.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 122 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.19 The Netherlands
3.19.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Dutch government considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of medium importance, which affects mainly the protected species. It reported a large list of illegal activities: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected, killing using illegal methods, illegal periods and areas and, involuntary killing by use of illegal products. Among these illegal practices, trapping and capturing for live sale and personal use show an impact on targeted species. Intentional and unintentional poisoning present a larger impact, affecting both target and by-catch species. For BirdLife, the main illegal activities in the Netherlands are killing and destroying the nests of raptors for the ‘control’ of predators. These activities are rare but they have affected more than 11 species of bird of prey in the last 5 years. Taking chicks of Hen Harriers from nests for illegal trade is also rare but has a very important impact on their population in the country.
3.19.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Flora and Fauna Act In the Netherlands, Flora and Fauna Act99 implements the aspects of the Birds and Habitats Directives that deal with species protection. Articles 9 to 12 of this Act reflects the transposition of article 5 of the BD. Article 13 transposes article 6 of the BD and articles 15a and 15b implements article 8 of the BD as they deal with the prohibited means and methods of hunting. Nature Conservation Act The other aspects of the Directives are covered in the Nature Conservation Act100.The Flora and Fauna Act confers legal protection on all wild species of flora and fauna, and outlines the
99 Available from: wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009640/geldigheidsdatum_01-07-2011
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 123 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
obligations imposed on protection of birds by the Birds Directive. Furthermore, it also incorporates the old Hunting and Birds Act101. Fines are not defined in the Act; much of the relevant section on punishment measures expired in 2002.
3.19.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Police surveillance is the main means of enforcement when it comes to crime related to wildlife. It can be carried out on a project basis, focusing, for instance, on certain types of incidental crime for a certain period of time. Such projects are generally launched jointly by the local authorities, the Public Prosecutions Department and the police, who might also agree to bring all the cases uncovered during the project before the court at one special sitting. This attracts publicity and has a preventive effect. The Public Prosecutions Department is the only body in the Netherlands with responsibility for prosecuting criminal offences. Only a public prosecutor can institute criminal proceedings in the criminal division of a court. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes No specific website or phone number is in place to report environmental crimes linked to birds in Netherland. Multidisciplinary environmental enforcement teams Multidisciplinary environmental enforcement teams, with representatives of the municipalities, regional environmental inspectorate, province, police and Public Prosecutions Department are currently being set up in some regions. Work is also being done in some regions to set up a system for providing information from administrative and criminal records. Awareness raising Many awareness raising actions are carried out by Dutch NGOs to fight against raptors and owl shows. A flyer was published and disseminated to explain why birds of prey and owls are not for show102.
100 Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. Nature conservation in the Netherlands. Available from: english.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640408&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_document_id=111079&p_n ode_id=10076648&p_mode= [Accessed 30/6/2011] 101 Environmental Data Compendium, 2004. Flora and Fauna Act: protected species. Available from: www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-1324.html [Accessed 30/6/2011] 102 Document available from: www.werkgroeproofvogels.nl/images/stories/pdf/Flyer- Roofvogelsenuilenzijnnietvoordeshow.pdf [Accessed 25/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 124 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.19.4 Good practices
The strict regulation and reduction of bird hunting has made the Netherlands one of the most secure countries for migrating birds, which has been documented by raising numbers of resting water birds for example.
3.19.5 Main barriers
As illegal killing of birds is not a widespread practice in the Netherlands, no main barriers were detected during the study.
3.20 Poland
3.20.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
Two authorities answered to the first questionnaire of this study: the Department of Forestry (belonging to the Ministry of Environment) and the Department for Nature Protection (belonging to the General Directorate of Environmental Protection). These two organisations have not the same feeling concerning the importance of the illegal killing of birds in Poland. For the Forestry Department, this concern is an issue of no importance whereas the Department for the Nature Protection recognises this concern as an issue of medium importance. Together, these two authorities reported the following practices in Poland: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, and killing of species which are protected. The Department of Nature Protection also recognises two additional practices: capture of species which are protected, and killing using illegal methods. All these illegal practices affect protected species and the Department for Nature Protection find them widespread across the country. In the Bern questionnaire, Polish authorities explain that illegal killing of birds in Poland is more a local than a general problem. The illegal practices consider as an issue and reported in this questionnaire are coherent with those mentioned above. According the Polish Society of the Protection of Birds, the main illegal activities are trapping and shooting hawks (sparrowhawk and goshawk, occasionally buzzard) and in limited number trapping songbirds for cage birds. An increasing problem is shooting of cormorants. The use of
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 125 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
poisoned baits against foxes but effecting in poisoning of white tailed eagles is also to be mentioned. The shooting of hawks could be tempered by the following facts, according to the Government: the populations of Goshawk (estimated at 5 000-10 000 individuals) and Sparrowhawk (2 500-10 000 individuals) are low compared to the Common Buzzard (50 000-80 000 individuals). Pigeon breeders, farmers and hunters perceive the first two species, and Goshawk in particular, as a threat to their property/game and this accounts for the desire to kill them. Nevertheless, there are very few people who can actually recognize a Buzzard from a Goshawk. Buzzards are also slower flyers, often scout for prey from fairly visible perches and are more often found in open areas. As such, they are far easier to shoot or trap and represent probably the majority of birds killed for that reason. Because the whole phemomena is still largely unrecognized there is no sound evidence to this.
3.20.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The BD is mainly implemented through the Act on Nature Conservation of 16 April 2004, Law on Hunting (Act of 13 October 1995) and Regulation on species of wild animals under protection of 28 September 2004. Act of 16 April 2004 on Nature Conservation Articles 15, 16, 24 and 52 of this Act implement article 5 of the BD. Article 54 reports the prohibited methods and means of hunting, according to article 8 of the BD. In addition, this act designs the Park guards as the representative in charge of the enforcement of the Act in all types of protected areas (natural reserves, national parks, Natura 2000 and other protected areas). The Chapter 11 of this act gives the penal provisions. A person who does not respect this Act shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment or fine (the length of the imprisonment and the amount of the fine are not specified). Act of 13 October 1995 In accordance with article 7 of the BD, this text defines protection of wild birds and ensures condition of safe existence of wild birds. It establishes the national hunting guard, whose aim is to protect wild game, to fight against poaching and against crimes and misdemeanours within the scope of hunting, and to control the legality of trade of game animals. The Law on Hunting gives the legal framework for penal provisions relating to the crimes and misdemeanours against wild game (including wild birds and its habitats) and against illegal hunting of game birds. The Act is completed by regulations; one of them is the Regulation of 11 March 2005, which provides the list of game animal species103. It contains 13 species of game birds. Hunting periods
103 Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dnia 11 marca 2005 r. w sprawie ustalenia listy gatunków zwierząt łownych: isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20050450433
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 126 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
for these animals are determined in the Regulation of 16 March 2005, which determinates hunting periods of game animals.104 Chapter 10 of this act gives the penal provisions. Article 51 stipulates that a person who removes eggs, nestlings or fledglings, destroys nests of game birds or destroys their rearing grounds (…) shall be subject to a fine (the amount is not specified). Article 52 provides sanctions by a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, a person who hunts game of a different species, different sex or in a greater number than provided for in the authorisation issued by the lessee or manager of the hunting area. Finally, article 53 sanctions a person who hunts migratory birds during the protection season by a penalty of imprisonment of up to 5 years. Regulation of 28 September 2004 on species of wild animals under protection105
This text implements article 6 of the BD by providing notably the list of wild birds that can be sold, transported and held for commercial purposes if they have been legally hunted. Penal code The criminal code in Poland includes regulations relating to the crimes against the natural environment. A person who has caused damage to plants or animals can be sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. Article 181 belonging to the chapter XXII “Crimes against natural environment” gives the following sanctions: who causes damage to plants or animals at large scale, is punishable by imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years who, contrary to the regulation in force in the territory covered by the protection, destroys or damages plants or animals causing material injury, shall be subject to penalty of restriction of liberty or imprisonment up to 2 years who at any place destroys or damages plants or animals of protected species, causing serious damage, should be subject to penalty of restriction of liberty or imprisonment up to 2 years, if the perpetrator causes damage to plants and animals unintentionally, the penalty of restriction of liberty or imprisonment up to 2 years and, if the perpetrator destroys or damages plants or animals of protected species unintentionally, subject to a fine or imprisonment.
104 Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dnia 16 marca 2005 r. w sprawie określenia okresów polowań na zwierzęta łowne: isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU20050480459&type=2
105 Rozporz¹dzenie Ministra Œrodowiska z dnia 28 wrzeœnia 2004 r. w sprawie gatunków dziko wystêpuj¹cych zwierz¹t objêtych ochron¹: prawo.ekologia.pl/Prawo_ochrony_srodowiska/fullview/WDU20042202237
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 127 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.20.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Unit in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The Park guards In national parks, tasks related to the protection of property and combating crime and misdemeanours in the framework of nature conservation are performed by a Park Guard (see article 108 of Act on Nature conservation). A Park guard officer has the right to: demand a document enabling the identification of persons suspected of committing a crime or misdemeanours or witnesses to the crime or misdemeanours; apprehend and transfer to the Police or other competent authorities if there is a case of reasonable suspicion a crime being committed or misdemeanours; apprehend and inspect means of transport in order to check their load and view the contents of luggage in case there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime or misdemeanours; searching of premises and other places where there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime or misdemeanours; secure physical evidence such as items from the crime or misdemeanours, as well as tools and means to commit them; inspection and detention, against receipt, documents relating to the legality of ownership and trading of elements of nature from the area a national park; control of entities having its activity within the area of national park in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Hunting guard Article 36 of Hunting Law defines the roles and functions of the hunting guards. The hunting guard aims to protect wild game, to fight against poaching and against crimes and misdemeanours within the scope of hunting, and to control the legality of trade of game animals. Lessees and managers of hunting areas are obliged to employ or appoint at least one guard, whose task shall be to conserve the wild game and ensure game management. The task of the State Hunting Guard is the supervision and certain provisions of this Act, which includes:
protection of wild game, fight against poaching and all forms of damage within the scope of hunting,
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 128 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
fight against crimes and misdemeanours within the scope of hunting, control of the legality of the game trade. During performance of their tasks, the guards of the State Hunting Guard shall have the right to:
demand a document enabling the identification of persons suspected of a crime or a misdemeanour in order to determine the identity of such persons, impose and collect fines by way of a penalty ticket for misdemeanours committed within hunting areas in respect to damage within the scope of hunting, apprehend and perform control checks of means of transport within hunting areas and in their immediate proximity with the purpose of verifying their truckload and checking the contents of the carried luggage where there is justified suspicion of a crime or misdemeanour being committed, conduct investigations and file and back charges in summary procedure where the object of the crime is wild game, in accordance with the procedure and regulations of the Penal Proceedings Code, conduct investigations in misdemeanour cases and participate in the trials conducted by misdemeanour boards as the public prosecutor
submit means of appeal to district courts against judgements of misdemeanour boards in matters concerning fight against damage within the scope of hunting, perform control checks of entities conducting purchase, processing, and sale of game carcasses or their parts to determine their origin, perform control checks of entities conducting trade in live game as well as of entities conducting breeding and husbandry of game animals to determine their origin, perform control checks of entities conducting sale of services which include hunts performed by foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland, demand that the state institutions provide the necessary help, request such help from economic entities, social organisations, and in emergency cases request immediate help provided in accordance with the provisions of the regulations on the Police, which lay down the detailed principles of requesting such help, from any citizen, Concrete enforcement action Reporting of crimes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 129 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
No specific website or phone number is in place to report environmental crimes linked to birds in Poland. Fighting against illegal hunting in practice Once a year, before the hunting season starts, hunting associations are obliged to develop an annual hunting plan and communicate it to national hunting authorities, municipal authorities, land tenants, farm owners etc. When illegal hunting takes place (off season hunting, protected species hunting, hunting not according to the annual plan), hunters and land owners are obliged to report the crime by notifying the state hunting guard, forest guard (Forest Service employee), State Fishery guard or the police. According to the Statute of the Polish Hunting Association106, hunters are obliged to participate actively in fighting against poaching and hunting wrecking. Awareness raising: educational activities of the Custom services in the field of CITES107 At the Warsaw airport, customs officers and "Polish Airports" set a glass display case that contains specimens of the most endangered by extinction species, which have been seized by officers. The airport is largely visited by school trips and it turns out that the display case is one of the most popular places due to the unusual lesson it contains. The display of specimens and accompanying information changes young peoples’ ideas and confirms the real life conditions of these animals. In order to increase public awareness in the field of CITES, Customs chambers of several regions organise special “nature lessons” in schools, which are very popular among students. During those lessons, they present artefacts made from endangered species of birds, distribute information brochures, organise artistic competitions for children etc.
3.20.4 Good practices
No good practices were recorded in Poland during this study.
3.20.5 Main barriers
No main barriers were recorded in Poland during this study.
106www.pzlow.pl/palio/html.media?_Instance=www.pzlow.pl&_Option=NewserMedia&_Connector=data&_ID=550&_ CheckSum=1227911121
107 www.mf.gov.pl/_files_/sluzba_celna/publikacje/wiadomosci_celne/2009/wc_10-11_2009_podglad.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 130 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.21 Portugal
3.21.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
According to the Institute of Nature Conservation and Biodiversity, ICNB, the Portuguese national authority for nature conservation and biodiversity (belonging to the Ministry of Environment), the current level of illegal killing of birds is an issue of medium importance in Portugal but it is a widespread practice. The authorities report the following illegal activities, which occur on the territory, all in a small case: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected, killing using illegal methods, illegal periods and areas and, involuntary killing by use of illegal products. The government reports that the shooting of birds, for trophies or for serving in restaurants, negatively affects the targeted species although in an expected very small scale. The trapping and the capture of birds for live sale as well as the poisoning affect both by-catch and targeted species and the unintentional poisoning presents an impact on wider conservation issues in Portugal with unknown magnitude. According to the SPEA, the national bird protection association, the most important illegal activities are poisoning of raptors, trapping for human consumption and illegal trade of cage birds. This NGO find that these activities have been increasing in the last 10 years. ICNB does not subscribe this statement, as there are no data that support this assertion. ICNB also specified that there are only a few denunciations about trapping for human consumption.
3.21.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Decree-Law 140/99 of the 24th April The main piece of legislation implementing the Birds Directive is Decree-Law 140/99 of the 24th April108, which was amended by Decree Law 49/2004. This Decree-Law, as amended, also
108 Available from: www.estg.ipg.pt/legislacao_ambiente/ficheiros/DL%20140-99.pdf [Accessed 1/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 131 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
transposes the Habitats Directive. Article 11 is concerned with the protection of animal species and species of birds naturally occurring in the wild. It therefore implements Articles 5 and 6 of the BD. Article 13 prohibits certain methods of killing or taking, and thus implements Article 8 of the BD. Offences committed under Articles 11 and 13 are punished with fines of 125 to 3 740 EUR for individuals and of 3 990 to 44 890 EUR in the case of legal persons, although for CITES listed species the fines reach 20 000 to 37 500 EUR for individuals and 38 500 to 2 500 000 EUR for legal persons. Hunting law The illegal killing of birds (or related actions) under hunting activities is punished under Law no.173/99, 21st September (“Hunting Law”). Killing of non-game species or killing of game species out of legal hunting conditions is considered a crime under Article 30 of Law no. 173/99 and is punished with imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine of up to 100 days. Criminal law The article 278 of this law punishes with imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 600 days someone who: eliminates an important number of individuals of fauna or flora, or from a protected species or threatened by extinction; destroys a natural protected habitat or destroys a natural habitat causing loss of legally protected wild fauna or flora or loss of an important number of individuals of fauna or flora; seriously affects the soil or the subsoil resources; This same article also sanctions with imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine of up to 120 days anyone who trades or possesses for trade an individual of a protected species of fauna or flora , dead or alive.
3.21.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Inspectors working for the Ministry of Environment Some inspectors work for the Ministry of Environment, which is in charge of monitoring the environmental offences. The Portuguese Republican National Guard is the gendarmerie of Portugal. The GNR is responsible for law enforcement in the countryside and small towns. They have a special body to enforce environmental law issues, SEPNA/GNR, which includes the authority to investigate bird crimes.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 132 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
The former Guards of Forest Resources also had the authority to report a crime and to impose fines on the person who committed the infraction, but since 2008 they were integrated in SEPNA/GNR. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes There is a national phone number (SOS line 808200520) as well as two e-mail addresses ([email protected] and [email protected]) in place where environmental crimes linked to birds in Portugal can be reported Awareness raising A growing number of awareness raising, communication actions and campaigns are in place, through conservation authorities, NGO and private sector companies (forestry, agriculture). For example under the Business & Biodiversity initiative, conservation projects (about the Iberian- lynx, Bonelli’s eagle) or forestry certification (e.g. FSC) are undertaken. Numerous workshops, training courses and seminars are given to students, both from schools and universities, museums, zoological parks and rescue and rehabilitation centres , and specifically to authorities with competences in wildlife issues and stakeholders such as bird breeders associations.
3.21.4 Good practices
Over the emergence of the quoted environmental police, Portugal implemented some new legislation that has direct impact in the keeping of birds in captivity and in the administrative sanctions and amount of fines. Keeping of bird species listed in Bird Directive is only allowed if the specimens are of captive bred origin and individually marked. Furthermore keepers must be registered in the ICNB. The registration scheme will allow the entrance of enforcement authorities in the keeper’s facilities, which allows an easier way to check the legality of the birds. Fines were considerably increased and the Portuguese Penal Code clearly states that capture and killing of protected birds should be treated as a criminal penalty. The emergence of a national environmental police (SEPNA/GNR) which operates in a regular way in all the Portuguese territory, allowed interventions in a more accurate manner. In relation to the use of poison a dedicated programme involving NGO, GNR/SEPNA and ICNB, the Antídoto project ,has raised awareness since 2003 on this issue, together with guidance to landowners and game managers related to the use of poison (ancient practice for predator control, including feral cats and dogs). Portuguese NGOs are now associate beneficiaries of a LIFE + funded project at Iberian scale on this issue. The exchange of best practices concerning hunting and livestock activities between Portugal and Spain are a part of this project.
3.21.5 Main barriers
The number of inspectors working directly for the Ministry of the Environment is very low (less than 100 for the entire country). Many environmental offences are committed at night or during
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 133 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
week-ends, when inspections are less effective, although SEPNA/GNR operates 24 hours/day. Main gap is the low number of resources involved in enforcement (particularly human resources) and also on awareness raising and communication close to landowners and game managers.
3.22 Romania
3.22.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Biodiversity Directorate from the Ministry of Environment and Forest of Romania considered the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of medium importance. The illegal activities they report are: poisoning of birds, trade of birds, killing of protected species and , involuntary killing by use of illegal products The Biodiversity Directorate recognises that shooting for trophies has an impact on by-catch species and that poisoning (intentional and unintentional) affects both targeted and by-catch species. The Romanian Ornithological Society reports that there are many different illegal activities conducted against birds in Romania. Killing for the ‘control’ of predators and killing for leisure or vandalism are the two main purposes of these activities. The third biggest illegal activity is the illegal trade of birds, especially for falconry and cage birds.
3.22.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Law on Hunting109 In this text, article 39 is the transposition of the article 8 of the BD as it lists all the prohibited methods of hunting (including the non-selective ones). By prohibiting sale, purchase and transport, Governmental Ordinance No. 57/2007 regarding protected areas, conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna110 This ordinance is the main text, which implements the BD as well as the Habitats Directive. Article 33 transposes articles 5, 6 and 7 of the BD.
109 Available from: www.rosilva.ro/documente/l407.pdf [Accessed 19/7/2011] 110 Available from: www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/pdf/natleg/GovernmentalOrdinance57-2007ro.pdf [Accessed 13/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 134 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.22.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation The National Self-Managed Public Company of Forests shall ensure and exercise the security of the forest fund under its administration, against poaching, and other damages (see article 33 of forest Law). Prefects, local and county councils as well as police and gendarmerie units, according to their powers established by law, shall have the obligation to lend support to security actions of the forest fund (see article 34 of forest Law). In November 2010, a special unit devoted to wildlife, the General Police Inspectorate for Animal Welfare111, also called the Animal Police, was founded. This special units aims to raise public awareness on rational and human behaviour towards animals and the need to uphold the legislation regarding animals and their rights as living beings in the social environment or in the wild. This unit also aims to take action for the purpose of animal and bird’s protection and they also amend the legislation in this field, to improve the present legislative framework, protection of the ecosystem and wildlife and to reduce the poaching phenomenon. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting a bird crime The Animal Police has a hotline as well as an email address where people can report illegal activities. Awareness raising actions No special awareness raising actions focused on illegal killing of birds were identified during this survey.
3.22.4 Good practices
No good practices were identified in Romania during the survey.
3.22.5 Main barriers
While interest and organised bird hunting is increasing, the number of rangers for example in the BR Danube Delta has been reduced during recent years. Many incidents of illegal killed birds are reported.
111 Website available from: www.politiaanimale.ro/en/ [Accessed 25/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 135 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.23 Slovakia
3.23.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The issue of bird crime in Slovakia has been tackled intensively since 2002. Many cases of bird crime were reported thanks to the cooperation among state administration bodies, nongovernmental organisations as well as the public. However, they represent only a small portion of the bird crimes because many more cases remained unsolved (several hundred birds are annually subjected to bird crime in Slovakia). The low level of detection is caused mainly by the demanding procedure to treat the cases. Thus, the Slovak government considers the current level of illegal birds killing as an issue of significant importance since it affects bird conservation. The authorities have reported the following illegal activities occurring in their country: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected, killing using illegal methods, illegal periods and areas and, involuntary killing by use of illegal products. These activities were reported by the Slovak government reported to the Bern Convention (in its national report, June 2011) to be driven by a range of activities. Shooting occurs for trophies, or to kill raptors considered predators of game species. For the latter, poisoning is also employed. Song birds are illegally trapped. These activities also sometimes occur for entertainment and intolerance. The Slovak government also reported three other issues: robbing of nests (the individuals are then kept in captivity or traded, often after their origin was legalised by fraud documents) and damaging nests (during the reconstruction of buildings, or for killing potential predators). All these illegal activities affect both targeted bird species and by-catch species. The issue of bird crime in Slovakia is reported to have intensively been tackled since 2002. According to BirdLife, the most important issue for Slovakia is the illegal killing of raptors for control of predators and trapping of raptors for falconry. From a conservation point of view, poisoning is the illegal methods having the biggest impact on raptors. Goshawks are targeted using specific traps. Shooting Corvids nests is still quite widespread and leads to shooting some falcons and owls who use the nests. Illegal trade of raptors for falconry has a high impact on their
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 136 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
populations at a national level (incidents of nests getting robbed have been recorded for Golden Eagle, Saker Falcon and Peregrine Falcon).
3.23.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Articles of the BD are implemented through three main texts. Nature and landscape Act (No 543/2002)112 Section 4 of this Act, dealing with “general plant and animal protection”, prohibits capture and killing of wild animals, according to article 5 of the BD. The penalty for this infraction is a fine of up to 23 000 EUR. Section 35 is the complete transcription of articles 5 and 6 of the BD. The execution of one of the illegal practices mentioned here is sanctioned by a fine of up to 10 000 EUR. However enforcement authorities have difficulties to proove an intention, especially in a case of disturbance and damage of natural habitats. Moreover, an intention can be proved only for natural persons, not for legal persons. Section 36 includes the list of all the prohibited methods and means of killing. The sanctions for the use of these illegal methods is a fine of up to 23 000 EUR. Finally, section 42 is also the transposition of article 6 as it makes mandatory proving the origin of the protected species. If the individual cannot give this proof, he risks a fine of up to 33 000 EUR. Hunting Act (No 274/2009) This Act implements articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the BD but only for game birds. Importation or exportation of game birds may be punished with a fine of up to 300 EUR. Disturbing of birds during nesting and the reproduction period may be punished with a fine from 30 to 300 EUR. If injured or killed game is found and if the hunting ground manager/user fails to investigate the cause of the death/injury and when it is proven it was caused by illegal means, and the hunting ground manager fails to notify the Police (Nature and Landscape Protection Authority in year round protected species case the), the user/manager can be punished by a fine from 5 000 to 15 000 EUR. Criminal Code (No 300/2005) Article 305 of this code punishes by an imprisonment up to two years a person who kills, injures catches, moves protected species, or destroys its habitat. The punishment may be up to five years if the act was committed on a larger scale and up to eight years if it was committed by a member of a dangerous and organised group. Article 310 of this code punishes by an imprisonment of up to two years a person who unlawfully infringes hunting regulations by engaging in game hunting without a permit, or by engaging in game hunting during the closed season, or by using unlawful methods, or who conceals, has in his possession or transfers to himself or another person the game caught or found. This article is
112 Document available from: www.sopsr.sk/natura/index1.php?p=2&lang=en [Accessed 9/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 137 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
applicable only to game birds. The scale of this crime is not important. The offender shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of four to ten years if he commits the offence on an extensive scale (133 000 EUR).
3.23.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the regulation and awareness raising actions Four ministries have the responsibility to monitor the illegal activities on birds, notably: the Ministry of the Environment, mainly its Slovak Environmental Inspection (SEI) but also the regional and district environmental offices; the Ministry of Land Use and Rural Development, which coordinates the regional and district forestry offices in charge of hunting, the State Veterinary and Food Administration and its regional offices; the Ministry of Interior which coordinates the police and especially the issue of environmental crime and; the Ministry of Finance which manages the customs offices. The SEI has four district offices, with 10 wildlife inspectors. These inspectors enforce two regulations: Nature and landscape Act and Act No 15/2005 related to CITES. Inspectors are not specialised in bird crime only. The SEI (whole departments together) is financed from state budget through the Slovak Ministry of Environment. Within the Presidium police there were 4 experts working on environmental crime before 2011. After establishing the special unit on environmental crime (since January 2011) the number of experts increased to 8. Bird crime is one of the issues tackled. The non-governmental organisations also play an important role for reporting and monitoring illegal activities. Raptor Protection of Slovakia (RPS), an NGO dealing with conservation of birds of prey and owls in the wild, has established the first database available on www.vtaciakriminalita.sk. The investigations of these illegal activities are carried out by different actors. For a criminal act (i.e. the societal value of killed/trapped/traded birds has been estimated to exceed 2 660 EUR, or the species is a game birds, whatever its estimated value), the police manage the investigations. In the case of offences (which do not exceed 2 660 EUR), the SEI as well as the Regional Environmental Offices and the District Environmental Offices are in charge of the investigation. In addition to these different actors, customs is responsible for international bird trade and the Nature Guard can impose a cash penalty in the case of light offences. In the legal system of the Slovak Republic, burden of proof lies mostly with the enforcement authorities. In some cases (breeding), the burden of proof (legality of holding) lies with the defendant. In most of the cases, only the offender and other persons proved to have participated in the illegal activities are liable. For example, when a poaching or other illegal activity is
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 138 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
recorded in a hunting area, the hunting association is not liable at all. According to the law, everyone who has recorded a crime is obliged to report it to the relevant authority.
Concrete enforcement actions Reporting for crimes As already mentioned, there is a web page available to the public where anyone can report a bird crime case - www.vtaciakriminalita.sk. The NGO RPS administrates this web page and contacts the state enforcement organisations. The public or anyone else is also free to directly contact the police or the Slovak environmental inspection and the district environmental offices. Awareness raising Different reports and awareness raising material and activities have been mentioned by the authorities: a national report on bird crime was submitted in June 2011 to the Bern Convention secretariat, CITES leaflets issued by customs were published for the public, the Slovakian CITES website (www.cites.sk) gives information to the public, identification materials for CITES species for enforcement authorities, guidance and training of enforcement authorities (SEI, district offices, police, customs officers, prosecutors, judges), a brochure has been published by RPS and is being distributed among the public. In the past, most awareness raising activities were undertaken by NGOs. Bird crime was reported more often in TV news, which helped it become more of an issue for the public. News is published on web pages of the Ministry of the Environment as well as on the State Nature Conservancy (www.sopsr.sk). Punishment and Fines Enforcement improved since the change of legislation in 1999 (implementing stricter norms) that may be documented by the following cases: in 2000 two members of the Czech Union of Falconers were caught during their attempt to rob eagles, in 2001 a Czech falconer was caught (and sentenced to 1 year), in 2004 a Slovak falconer was stopped when robbing the nest of Falco peregrinus, in 2006 the former Slovak falconers was caught during illegal transport of 6 nestlings of Falco peregrinus. All these persons were sentenced. Fines for breaking the law are explicitly linked to the species that is targeted. The following table lists the fines actually sentenced in recent years.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 139 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Species name Offence Fine (number of specimens) Aquila pomarina (1), Bubo bubo (1), 50.000,- Sk Aquila heliaca (1), (ca. EUR 1700) Buteo buteo (2)
Trade with CITES Annex I 2.000,- Sk Falco peregrinus (1) species without having the due (ca. EUR 70) permit 2.000,- Sk Ara maracana (2) (ca. EUR 70) 3.000,- Sk Aquila chrysaetos (1) (ca. EUR 100) 8.000,- Sk Cacatua galerita (2) Lack of the licence on origin (ca. EUR 270) required according to the 5.000.- Sk national legislation Accipiter gentilis (4) (ca. EUR 170)
3.23.4 Good practices
According to the Slovak authorities, the strengths of the Slovak system include: valid legislation (except for transposition of all EU/Bern/Bonn Conventions requirement it is mainly the Criminal Code and relatively strong sanctions…), compensation for damages caused by selected protected species – including one bird species – cormorant that causes damage mainly on fishponds, good cooperation among sectors as well as NGOs that used projects to develop database, separate unit on environmental crime with the Presidium Police, control of illegal captivity of bird species. Activities such as dissemination of promotional and educational materials, presentations and meetings with land users help to raise their awareness (and of the wider public) and thus prevent illegal activities. An effective cooperation is being established with some of the local hunting associations and the biggest climbing association to prevent disturbance. There is cooperation between all responsible state authorities and NGOs to increase the effectiveness of prevention.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 140 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.23.5 Main barriers
It is difficult to prove that a specimen has been taken from the wild. Burden of proof lies with enforcement authorities only. Regulations are not clear. The number of wildlife inspectors is insufficient. The state organisations and NGOs dealing with this issue do not have enough tools (personnel as well as finances) to fight with illegal activities effectively. The value of some endangered bird species according to the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. is not high enough to consider the illegal activity as a crime. Within the project focused on this issue implemented by RPS in 2009 and 2010, workshops and training were organised for the representatives of police, State Nature Conservancy and state environment bodies. A specialised web page was created, as well as a centralised database. Special guidelines were prepared and submitted to the responsible state organisations. A popular brochure for the wide public was prepared. An annual report of bird crime and other illegal activities was prepared for 2009 and 2010. The project was financed by the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism, Norwegian Financial Mechanism and the state budget through the Ekopolis Foundation.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 141 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.24 Slovenia
3.24.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
According to the inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for the Environment and Spatial Planning, the current level of illegal killing of birds is an issue of no importance in Slovenia. No illegal activities were reported by the government according to the first questionnaire sent for this survey. On the other hand, the NGO BirdLife reported that the biggest problem is Slovenia is taking birds for cages and collections for the Italian market. It seems this has a negative impact on populations of Ortolan Bunting and Rufous Tailed Rock Thrush. Woodcock is sometimes illegally hunted for some specialised restaurants in the south-western part of Slovenia, towards the Italian border. Slovenia is known as a transit country for dead birds sold on the Italian market, mainly for food and most probably for taxidermy purposes. In the past few years, media has regularly reported on the success of customs and the police in capturing smugglers of rare and protected birds. Illegal shipments were often found at the EU external border, and generally not the consequence of illegal hunting in Slovenia. On the official home page of the Customs Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, some 20 cases of illegal trading of dead birds are described for the 2006- 2011 period, which indicated that several hundred to several thousand (up to 10,000) confiscated birds per year113. The Slovenian Environment Agency (ARSO), as part of the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, reports on illegal bird trade on an annual basis within the framework of CITES114. Killing of raptors and in some cases illegal trapping of small Passerines close to the Italian border for the pet trade on the Italian market is also taking place. It seems that taking juvenile raptors from nests is a critic problem in Slovenia, however proof is missing. Poisoning of birds is no longer a topic in Slovenia. Slovenia has not been a source country for nearly 20 years (according to Paragraph 3 of the Decree specifying wild game and hunting periods (101/2004), thanks to some positive changes in the national hunting law after the fall of the iron curtain. As far as bird trading is concerned, only Pheasant, Mallard, Eurasian Jay, Magpie, Hooded Crow and, under special permission, Grey Partridge and Quail derived from artificial breeding programmes are considered game species.
3.24.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Four main texts implement the BD in Slovenia.
113 www.carina.gov.si/en/splosno/iskalnik/search/
114 www.arso.gov.si/narava/konvencija%20CITES/v%20Sloveniji/nezakonita_trgovina.html
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 142 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Nature Conservation Act (No 96/2004)115 Article 14 gives the general protection regimes for plant and animals and then implements article 5 of the BD. Article 16, by promoting a sustainable management of animal species, is the direct transposition of article 7 of the BD. Finally, article 23 presents the basis of the legal and illegal trade in accordance with article 6 of the BD. Penal provisions for the Nature Conservation Act (96/2004) stipulate penalties ranging from 2 500 to 40 000 EUR. Penal Code (Uradni list RS No. 55/2008) This text stipulates the following penalties in its article 342 for penal acts of illegal hunting: a fine up to 4 000 EUR or up to one year imprisonment for illegal taking of huntable species a fine or up to 2-year imprisonment for hunting endangered species or those not allowed to be hunted Decree on the protection of wild animal species (46/2004) This decree brings provisions of articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 and annexes I, II, III, IV and V to the Council Directives 79/409/EGS, as well as provisions of articles 1, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18, and annexes II, IV, V and VI to the Council Directives 92/43/EGS. Article 21 regulates temporary or permanent prohibitions: The Ministry of the Environment can provisionally prohibit or limit certain activities, encroachments upon nature or deeds that would endanger the existence of certain animal species from the annexes 1 or 2 of this Decree in the existing areas of their distribution and in the existing numbers, particularly in the areas or sites where these animals breed, rear their young, hibernate or gather in greater numbers during migration or wintering. Decree on the management and the protection methods in trade in animal and plant species (39/2008) This decree regulates illegal trade. The paragraph 45 regulates the non-respect of this act and is sanctioned by: a fine from 1134 to 33383 EUR for companies, a fine from 167 to 1670 EUR for responsible person of a company a fine from 83 to 584 EUR for individuals.
115 Available from: www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200496&stevilka=4233 [Accessed 14/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 143 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.24.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the regulation and awareness raising actions Slovenia does not possess a special unit for wildlife protection. The reporting and monitoring activities are carried out by police, customs authorities, environmental inspectors, hunting and fishing inspectors as well as nature protection wardens (national authorities). All these actors are also allowed to convict and sanction the illegal activities but only police and customs authorities are in charge of the investigation of these illegal practices. In Slovenia, the investigating authority for illegal activities are the police, customs and hunting inspectors. It is interesting, however, that mobile customs units investigate illegal trade/transit within the country, and quite successfully. In the legal system of Slovenia, burden of proof lays mostly with the enforcement authorities and the defender is liable for the illegal activities. Landowners are not responsible for any illegal activities. If they are aware of illegal activities being carried out, but do not report them to the police/inspection, they are held responsible and liability could be shared (depending on each separate case). Persons organising legal hunting operations are responsible for illegal activities during the hunting sessions. However, if illegal activities occur without knowledge or against directives issued by the persons organising legal hunting operations, they are not held responsible if they report such activities to inspection or the police. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes No website or hotline is devoted to the reporting of bird crimes in Slovenia. Awareness raising The successful investigations of the authorities are reported on a special website116.
3.24.4 Good practices
A major success was achieved after the fall of the iron curtain, when a new hunting law was implemented, reducing drastically the list of bird game species. Today only 5 (+1) bird species are game species (regulated by the Decree specifying the wild game and hunting periods 101/2004). This unique success at European scale was achieved in cooperation between official (Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation) and private (DOPPS-BirdLife Slovenia) structures. It is estimated that illegal activities in the country have been reduced by 90 percent.
116 www.carina.gov.si/en/splosno/iskalnik/search/ - please type in box search the word “ptice”.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 144 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
CITES training and education take place on a regular basis (customs, police, and inspection), with special focus on trade, crossing border and problems of illegal hunting practices. Some information could be found in CITES-Reports by Slovenian authorities117: An Internet tool has been created by BirdLife Slovenia, called “Pravo za naravo = Law for nature” (www.pravo-za-naravo.si/zaznamek/krivolov/, which allows for the writing up and sending of reports on illegal killing, trapping, trading etc. of birds to the hunting inspection or to the police. There is great need to promote this tool as only a handful of persons have used it so far. Report on illegal trade of protected birds in Slovenia118 is a useful internet publication that covers the 2002-2006 period and is hoped to be updated soon.
3.24.5 Main barriers
There is no dedicated website/e-mail address/phone number to report bird crimes and/or birds found dead/trapped. No special unit/forces for wildlife protection exist in Slovenia. Hunting inspectors are authorised by the Slovenia Forest Service to supervise the implementation of the Game and Hunting Law and, on this basis, the concession contracts (signed by the state and individual hunting grounds). Sanctions for known perpetrators are issued by hunting inspectors, while cases in which unknown perpetrators are involved are dealt with by the police. As hunting inspectors are concurrently hunters (members of hunting grounds) there is an incompatibility of these functions, as they have to supervise themselves. In the 1991-2011 period, there were certain difficulties in detecting bird crime in Slovenia: after the successful police confiscation of illegally killed and protected birds, taxidermists in Slovenia no longer keep them in their homes, do not take juvenile birds from nests of raptors and owls, and cases of saving them from cats and dogs have also been reported. In the case of illegal trade, the Slovenian Customs authority imposes a bail payment (650 EUR per each offence) on smugglers, initiates a procedure on violation of customs regulations (in compliance with article 16 of the first paragraph of article 87 of the Law on implementation of the EU customs regulations), or files an indictment at the competent public prosecutor’s office on the grounds of suspicion of criminal offence. It seems, however, that measures taken and penalties paid are not in accordance with the committed offences. Almost exclusively, foreign citizens are caught smuggling. One of the major barriers in a full enforcement of the regulations are the so-called special permissions for shooting protected species, such as Cormorant (regularly) and Raven (stopped in 2009), given by the Slovenian Environment Agency (ARSO) – if such permission is given, protected species are open to killing without limits (illegal killing /poaching /taxidermy are reported).
117 www.arso.gov.si/narava/poro%c4%8dila%20in%20publikacije/Cites%20-%20Ptice%20SLO.pdf and www.arso.gov.si/narava/poro%c4%8dila%20in%20publikacije/Cites%20-%20Poro%c4%8dilo%202000%20- %202004.pdf 118 www.arso.gov.si/narava /poro%C4%8Dila%20in%20publikacije/ Cites%20-%20Ptice%20SLO.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 145 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
After the legalization of falconry (hunting with hawks) in Slovenia in the absence of sufficient control, room was given to illegal keeping and breeding of raptors. This was enabled by the Law on changes and supplements of the Law on game and hunting (17/2008). After a review of the website and phone calls on 17th and 23rd August 2011 to the Slovenian Hunting Association (SLZ) (www.lovska-zveza.si/default.asp), no information was identified in a foreign language on how to hunt in Slovenia. Beside links to the legislation it seems that illegal killing/trapping/trade of birds is not a topic on the SLZ home page. On the other hand, for game species such as bear, deer, boar, ibex etc. poaching is regularly (yearly) described and reported.
3.25 Spain
3.25.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The General Directorate on Wildlife and Forestry of the Spanish Ministry of Environment and Marine and Rural Affairs considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of significant importance on its territory. This issue affects the protected species and has an impact the conservation of birds in general. The two main illegal activities reported for Spain are: poisoning of birds and, trapping of birds. Poisoning activities have a larger impact: they affect both targeted species and by-catch species. Trapping is mainly done for personal use and affects the targeted species. The Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs does not consider a serious conservation threat the capture of wild birds in Spain and all trapping activities undertaken are based on permits issued by the competent authorities. Nevertheless, there are two types of practices related to the bird trapping that have been addressed in recent times by the Spanish government. The first is the "parany", which is an activity developed on the Spanish Mediterranean coast (mainly in Valencia) during the migratory period. It consists in attracting different bird species through audio and, sometimes, visual decoys to artificially managed vegetation structures. When birds reach these structures, perches in impregnated adhesive-lime sticks makes them fall into the structure and prevents them from flying. This practice is completely banned by the Spanish authorities. The second practice is known as "silvestrismo". In Spain, there is tradition of trapping birds of the family Fringillidae to maintain them in captivity for leisure purposes such as the hobby of management and training of variations in song and plumage. This traditional activity, developed in Spain, would be in conflict with both the national and EU conservation legislation in relation to the possible inadequate compliance of the regime of derogations set out in Article 9 of the BD. The need for the enforcement of the legislation is necessary in order to change the practice of this activity. Therefore, it is mandatory to replace the generalised trapping and possession of wild birds by captive breeding as a means of supplying birds for hobby purposes. Captive breeding has
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 146 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
been proposed from different legal establishments as the alternative to generalized finches trapping. For BirdLife, the most important illegal activity regarding birds in Spain is the shooting and poisoning of raptors (14 species affected). These birds are taken either by farmers/hunters for control of predators or for leisure. Poisoning is the illegal method of killing raptors that has the biggest conservation impact. Taking raptors for falconry is also an important issue, as well as trapping passerines (mainly Sylvidae and Turdidae) for trade of cage birds.
3.25.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The BD in Spain is implemented through two main laws: law on the Conservation of Natural Areas and Wild Flora and Fauna119 of the 27th of March (No 4/89) and Organic Law of 23th November 1995 (No 10/1995). Law on the Conservation of Natural Areas and Wild Flora and Fauna (No 4/89) The relevant provisions are under Title 4 of the Law. Article 6 prohibits killing, injuring or disturbing wild animals, whatever the method used in accordance with the article 5 of the BD. The possession, trafficking and trade of such animals, whether alive or dead, are also prohibited in accordance with the article 6 of the BD. Article 33 is the transposition of the article 7 of the BD. It is concerned with hunting. It states that species that are listed or prohibited by the EU cannot be declared as being eligible for hunting by the Autonomous Communities. It also states that for the species for which hunting is allowed, it must be regulated in order to ensure the preservation and promotion of such species. Finally, article 34 implements article 8 of the BD as it prohibits all large-scale and non-selective procedures for the capture and killing of animals, particularly poison and traps, as well as those that may cause local disappearance or seriously disturb populations of a species. Hunting of birds during the breeding, and rearing seasons, as well as during the return of migratory species to their breeding grounds is also prohibited. This law was replaced by Law 42/2007 of the 13th of December on the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity120. Article 52 contains the provisions for preventing the activities listed in the articles 5 and 6 of the BD. The fines applied under this law are on a scale, according to the gravity of the offence: minor offences = fines of 500 to 5000 EUR; serious offences = fines of 5 001 to 200 000 EUR; and
119 Information available from: www.mma.es/portal/secciones/raa/documentos_enlaces_raa/jormadas_red/jornada_2/3_1_legislacion_comunitaria.ht m [Accessed 29/6/2011]
120 Available from: www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2007-21490#analisis [Accessed 1/7/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 147 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
very serious offences = fines of 200 001 to 2 000 000 EUR (the Autonomous Communities can increase the maximum amount).
Organic Law of 23 November 1995 The Organic Law of 23 November 1995 (No 10/1995) of the Penal Code prohibits the hunting of endangered species as well as activities that prevent or hinder their reproduction or migration, or destroy or severely alter habitat, contrary to law or general provisions protective of wildlife species, or trades or traffics with or their remains. For these illegal activities, the sanctions is an imprisonment from four months to two years or a fine of eight to twenty four EUR and disqualification of a profession or occupation and disqualification for exercising the right to hunt or fish for period of two to four years. The penalty shall be in the top half if it is a listed species or subspecies in danger of extinction. In addition, this law also punishes the use of poison or other means or instruments non-selective and destructive to wildlife. The fine for this is an imprisonment from four months to two years or a fine of eight to twenty four months and in any case, the specific disqualification for a profession or occupation and disqualification for exercising the right to hunt or fish for period of one to three years. If the damage was evident, importance of imposing the prison terms above in the upper half. In addition to the national texts, the Spanish regions, quite autonomous, present also some texts related to the implementation of the BD. Four regions are presented below: Andalucia, Canarias, Castilla y Leon and Valencia regions. Andalucía region In the Andalucía region, four main texts transpose articles 5 to 8 of the BD: Law on Flora and Fauna (No 8/2003); Order of 7 October 2004 approving the Charter of Services of the Game, Inland Fisheries and other uses of Wild Flora and Fauna; Decree approving the rules of game management (No 182/2005) and; Order of 4 June 2008 which fixes the working periods and bans hunting in the territory of the Autonomous Community of Andalucía. Canarias region Law on Hunting of July 1998 The Law on Hunting of July 1998 (No 7/1998) defines the sanctions for different illegal bird activities: for killing or taking birds inside a protected area, the fine defined in this law is between 3 000 and 9 000 EUR;
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 148 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
for killing or taking birds outside the legal season, the fine is between 600 and 3 000 EUR; for killing or taking birds without licence, the fine is between 3 000 and 9000 EUR; the use of illegal equipment or means of transport lead to a sanction from 3 000 to 9 000 EUR; the illegal trapping (with no respect regarding the legal conditions of trapping) is sanctioned by a fine from 3 000 to 9 000 EUR; the poisoning of birds is sanctioned by a fine from 3 000 to 9 000 EUR and; illegal trade can be sanctioned by a fine from 600 to 3000 EUR. Law on the Catalog of the Protected Species The Law on the Catalog of the Protected Species of 4 June 2010 (No 4/2010) ensures the protection of the protected species on the Canary islands and defines a fine from 5 000 to 200 000 EUR for killing, taking, poisoning or illegal trade of a protected species. Castilla y Leon Region Several texts implement the BD in this region: In Resolution of 8 July 2011, the Directorate General of the Environment indicates the days of hunting for the midseason in the territory of the Community of Castilla y Leon; Order of 24 June approving the Annual Hunting Order (No 867/2011); Order of 13 June, establishing the sealing system of large wild game to control the execution of the plans of private hunting and hunting federation of the region; Order of 3 November 2010 (No 1526/2010) which regulates the Regional Commission for certification of hunting trophies; Order of 4 November 2005 (No 1011/2005) which regulates the catch for tenure and/or captive breeding of species of finches in the region and; Order of 22 July 2005 (No 1011/2005) which regulates the capture for the possession and/or captive breeding of finches in the region; Valencia region One text specifically implements a part of the BD in this region: Order of 1st July 2011 (No 1/2011) published by the Department of Infrastructure Planning and the Environment, which sets the open season for hunting and special closures for the 2011-2012 season at the Valencia region.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 149 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
3.25.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the regulation and awareness raising actions The Regional governments (comunidades autónomas) are the competent authorities to monitor the enforcement of the legislation for the protection of wildlife. The Spanish ministry of environment is responsible for coordinating all the monitoring activities and has to collect and report data to international bodies. There are several official working groups for the coordination of protection policies, the application of the different regulations and the assessment of the overall situation. Two main services carry out the investigation and prosecuting of the illegal activities notices: at the national level, the Service of Nature Protection of the Civil guard (Servicio de Protección de la Naturaleza de la Guardia Civil) work in collaboration with the administrations and NGOs and directly report their findings to judicial bodies; at the regional level, the environmental agents have the same competence as Civil guards in the investigation of the non- compliance with the law. Local, regional and national police can also take care of these tasks. They can apply administrative-economic sanctions. Once investigated, the prosecuting of these cases can be carried out by the Service of Nature Protection of the Civil guard as it is a police body. In the legal system of Spain, all persons are innocent until proven guilty. The law expresses rather well what is not allowed (for example, possession, selling, etc). Landowners or land-managers are only responsible if it is showed in the regulation or acts affecting the activity and depending on the interpretation of the courts. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes No website or hotline is devoted to the reporting of bird crimes in Spain. Awareness raising In Spain, the Antidoto programme offers the choice of communicating any suspect case of poisoning of wildlife, with a telephone number and a webpage. Other findings must be reported to the competent authorities or to the police bodies.
3.25.4 Good practices
Four good practices have been reported by the government: Regional strategies against illegal use of poisoned baits
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 150 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
National Strategy against illegal use of poisoned baits in the environment Technical guidelines for adapting wild finches trapping to the Birds Directive 2009/147/CE Collaboration in several conservation projects, applying best management practices (LIFE Antidoto, LIFE Veneno www.venenono.org, etc).
3.25.5 Main barriers
Four main barriers have been reported by the Spanish government: difficulties in applying fines, traditional and social hold, lack of members of prosecution bodies and, failures in judicial procedures.
3.26 Sweden
3.26.1 Main issues related to illegal birds killing
The Wildlife Management section of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency considers the current level of illegal killing of birds an issue of medium importance, which influences the conservation of birds. According to the government, many illegal practices occur on Swedish territory: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing or capture of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected, killing using illegal methods, illegal periods and areas and, collect of eggs in the wild. Among these illegal practices, trapping and intentional poisoning affect the targeted species.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 151 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
The Swedish Ornithological Society specifies that these illegal activities mainly target three predator species. The Golden Eagle is getting shot, especially in areas with reindeer breeding. The Cormorant eggs are getting destroyed and the Goshawks are targeted using illegal trapping.
3.26.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
Different texts implement the BD in Sweden. Environmental code Chapter 8 of this code gives special provisions concerning the protection of animals and plant species. Section 1 prohibits the killing, injury and capture of wild animals as well as the collect or damage to the eggs, spawn, roe or nests, in accordance with article 5 of the BD. Section 4 of this chapter provides the rules concerning imports and exports, transportation, housing, preparation and exhibition of, or trade in, animals and plants. Any person who infringes the rules imposing prohibitions for the protection of species of animals and plants mentioned in the section 1 and 4 of the chapter 8 shall be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. Hunting regulations: Hunting Act (No259/1987) and Hunting ordinance (No 905/1987) In conformity with article 7 of the BD, Hunting Regulations determine which animals can be hunted and when this can be done. Forty or so species of birds can be hunted during the periods specified in the Regulations. In general, an unlimited number of individual animals can be taken during the general hunting season (specific cases e.g. for moose apply). The minimum sentence for serious instances of illegal hunting or receiving illegally hunted animals is six months imprisonment. The maximum sentence is 4 years imprisonment. Species Protection Ordinance (No 845/2007) This ordinance contains provisions governing capture, killing, taking from the wild, trade and other actions involving specimens of animal and plant species in need of protection. Articles 4 and 5 of this ordinance are the transposition of the articles 5 and 8 of the BD respectively. Articles 16, 23 and 25 deals mainly with trade and transport issues in conformity with article 6 of the BD. Ordinance (940/1998) on fees for examination and supervision under the Environmental Code Chapter 7 applies for activities under the Environmental code, specifically for import, export or other activities defined in the Species protection ordinance and for applying for exemptions to that ordinance. Swedish predator policy (2009) Measures to minimise conflicts and prevent damages, including by the golden eagle, however mainly applies to wolves, wolverines, lynx and bears.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 152 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
3.26.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the regulation The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is the sectoral agency both responsible for nature conservation and wildlife management and for hunting issues. Delegations for Wildlife Management have been established for each county administrative board in 2010. Stakeholders include the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management and Lund University, which carries out the Swedish bird survey121. The agencies and bodies that are involved in the process of enforcement and administration are: the Government; the Ministry of Environment; national environmental authorities such as the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Chemical Inspectorate; regional authorities such as the County Administrative Boards; and local municipal authorities. The judicial system in this area includes the Environmental Courts, the Supreme Environmental Court and the Supreme Court. Criminal enforcement is handled by the police organisation, the public prosecutor and the general courts. The Environmental Courts and the County Administrative Boards are the essential licensing authorities. However, some national environmental authorities, e.g. the Chemical Inspectorate, can issue licences within their control area. Cases can be appealed, for example, to the Supreme Environmental Court or to the Supreme Court depending on which level the first examination of an application or a matter was made. County Administrative Boards and municipal authorities are the essential supervisory authorities. National environmental authorities, e.g. the EPA, have both an enforcing and a guiding role. Nature wardens Nature wardens are mandated by the government or the authority to supervise compliance with the rules relating to areas, natural objects and plant and animal species that are issued pursuant to the provisions of chapters 7 and 8, chapter 11, section 14 and chapter 12, section 6 of the Environmental Code. Nature wardens may turn away persons found in places where they do not have access pursuant to these rules. Nature wardens may confiscate hunting and fishing tackle, means of transport and other objects that may be relevant to an investigation of the offence.
121 See www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/birdmonitoring/Eng/index.htm
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 153 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
If a nature warden confiscates an object, he shall report it to the police or public prosecution authorities without delay. The officer who receives a report shall act as if he had made the confiscation himself. As for many EU countries, even when the offender has been caught, it is difficult for the police forces to obtain convictions because the intent must be proven. Concrete enforcement actions Reporting a bird crime Concretely, when someone notices a bird crime, he has to call the police centre and alert the authorities. Any Swedish authority should report criminal activities which they get to know about. The County Administrative Board and the Swedish EPA. are the main authorities which monitor the observance of the laws of nature protection. The police can take the initiative to start investigations of illegal activities which they get to know about, e.g. by reports from the public. The police investigates offences within the country, while the customs investigate international illegal trade. Specialised prosecutors and Courts There are about 20 prosecutors specialised on environmental law in Sweden, working at the Unit for Environmental crime, split into 6 geographic zones. The unit was established on 1st January 2009 for managing severe crime related to hunting of protected species, environmental crimes (related to the Environmental Code) and crimes related to peoples working conditions and environment, or pollution from ships at sea122. The cases are randomly distributed between these prosecutors. However, some will be specialised depending on which cases they have been managing. There have been 2 cases lately involving bird collectors. Aino Almén (Stockholm) and Krister Janas (Östersund) are the prosecutors working on birds hunting/killing/collecting at the moment in Sweden. The work of the unit is closely linked to the specialised environmental courts123. Burden of proof In Sweden, the general rule is that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. There is however a rule in the Species Protection Ordinance stating that an exception to the prohibition of keeping and transport of birds and eggs is being made if it can be shown that birds and eggs have been taken from nature in accordance with regulations in the Hunting Act. Thus the burden of proof lies with the defendant in this special question. Awareness raising Hunters organisations receive national funding to organise awareness-raising activities. Examples of fines
122 Source: www.aklagare.se/Sok-aklagare/Nationella-aklagarkammare-/Riksenheten-for-miljo--och- arbetsmiljomal 123 See www.domstol.se/Funktioner/English/The-Swedish-courts/District-court/Land-and-Environment-Courts
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 154 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
In October 2011 a person was convicted for illegally hunting 1000 birds on another person´s hunting area, about 13 000 birds outside the legal season and about 70 birds of protected bird species. He used illegal equipment and was also convicted for cruelty to the birds. The crime was considered severe and the sanction was imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months. The Swedish EPA reported that the general awareness of criminality against wildlife seems to be increasing.
3.26.4 Good practices
The specialised courts can be identified as a good practice in Sweden.
3.26.5 Main barriers
No main barriers have been identified during this study in Sweden.
3.27 UK
3.27.1 Issues related to illegal birds killing
In general, in UK, the current level of illegal killing of birds is considered as an important issue. These illegal practices affect the protected species and their conservation. The different authorities in UK reported the following illegal activities occurring in UK: shooting of birds, poisoning of birds, trapping of birds, trade of birds, killing or capture of species which are protected, capture of species which are protected, involuntary killing by use of illegal products In the national report124. to the Bern Convention the UK’s National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), which assists in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime, reported that in the period September 2008 to August 2010, the population of 442 pairs of golden eagle were subject to nine incidents (2%); four poisonings and five disturbances. It is believed that most of these incidents were associated with land managed for grouse shooting. The 400 pairs of goshawk were subject
124 National report available from: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=T- PVS/Inf(2011)11&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DG4- Nature&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864 All information in that paragraph reported from that report.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 155 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
to 14 incidents, eight related to possession offences, five to disturbance, and it is understood that there were reports of two direct killing of goshawks but neither were confirmed. It has been suggested that illegal killing by game rearing interests has prevented the expansion of the population. The 690 pairs of hen harrier were subject to 11 incidents; seven of disturbance, three of direct killing and one of chick theft. It is suggested that persecution associated with moorland managed for grouse-shooting is a significant issue. The 431 pairs of red kite were subject to 29 incidents, of which 24 were confirmed poisonings. The 36 pairs of white-tailed eagle were subject to 4 incidents; two poisonings, one shooting and one disturbance. The 1400 pairs of peregrine falcon were subject to 66 incident reports; twelve of egg/chick theft; one of poisoning and a number of illegal trapping and shooting. Over half of these incident reports were submitted by the RSPB. It is suggested that peregrine falcon breeding performance is much reduced on land managed for grouse shooting. The NWCU also received three incident reports in relation to osprey (148 pairs); 86 incidents involving common buzzard (38,000 pairs); and 14 incidents involving sparrow hawk (39 000 pairs). The NWCU received 41 reports of incidents of finch-trapping between September 2008 and August 2010, suggesting that there is a small market for trade in wild-taken finches. The NWCU received 32 reports of incidents of illegal egg-taking and comment that this figure has reduced following a number of convictions in the last two years. The NWCU received 463 reports of incidents involving swans in the same two-year period. The NGO on bird protection have the same visions concerning the main issues related to illegal killing of birds: according to RSPB, the most important issue for the UK is the illegal shooting, poisoning and trapping of raptors. Illegal trapping associated with shooting estates, primarily land managed for driven grouse shooting, is the primary factor limiting population status of hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Buzzard (Buteo buteo) is the most commonly persecuted bird of prey, but it appears not to be having a conservation level effect.
3.27.2 Implementation of the Birds Directive
The UK is a unitary state but consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In addition to the general law for the four countries, the UK has today four distinct systems of law: English law, Northern Ireland law, Scottish law and Welsh law. Therefore, all the texts implemented at the UK scale are also defined at the country level with specific provisions. The main texts for the implementation of the Birds Directive in the UK are Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, and the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 2007. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 This act applies to England, Wales and Scotland, and is the primary piece of legislation, which protects animals, plants and certain habitats in the UK. Section 1 of the Act implements article 5 of the Birds Directive.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 156 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Section 2 states that “a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1 by reason of the killing or taking of a bird included in Part I of Schedule 2 outside the close season for that bird, or the injuring of such a bird outside that season in the course of an attempt to kill it”. In this regard, the article implements article 7 of the Directive. Section 5 of the Act implements article 8 of the Directive by making it an offence to use non- selective methods of killing and trapping. This article also prohibits the use of any “poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substances”. Finally section 6 of the Act implements article 6 of the Directive. The penalty for contravention of any of the aforementioned articles is a prison term of up to six months or a fine up to level five on the standard scale. The Act includes provisions for enforcement by policy constables, and by wildlife inspectors in Scotland.
Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997125 This regulation implements mainly article 6 of the BD as well as CITES. This text deals with regulation and control of the import, export, landing, keeping, transportation and commercial display of, and trade in and disposal of, fauna and flora (including their parts and derivatives) and in relation to anything supplemental or incidental to those matters. For contravening these regulations, an offender can be sanctioned by a fine of up to 5 730 EUR and/or a term of imprisonment of up to 3 months if tried in a magistrates’ court; or if tried at Crown Court, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years and/or an unlimited fine.
3.27.3 Enforcement of the regulation and awareness raising actions
Units in charge of the enforcement of the regulation Police services In the UK the legislation protecting birds is enforced primarily by the police service. Each of the 52 UK police forces are responsible for enforcing wildlife legislation in their geographical area and each force has a Police Wildlife Crime Officer (PWCO) or a nominated contact point for wildlife offences. Investigation is the responsibility of local police forces. United Kingdom National wildlife crime unit This unit supports law enforcement agencies throughout the UK on combating wildlife crime. It investigates all offence, including illegal trade in endangered species and poaching and provides the police and custom officers with intelligence, investigative and analytical support on wildlife crime. The National Wildlife Crime Unit gathers intelligence to detect trends and can advise on investigation techniques
125 Available from: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1372/made [Accessed 15/9/2011]
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 157 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Wildlife crime unit of the Metropolitan Police The Wildlife Crime Unit is responsible for enforcement of wildlife laws within the London area, and for taking initiatives to prevent wildlife crime. The Unit also provides specialist support and assistance to police officers all over London, and works in partnership with many other agencies, both government and non-government, in Britain and internationally, as well as providing a focal point for enquiries from the public. The Unit is part of the Met’s Specialist Crime Directorate, and is made up of a small team of specialist police and civilian staff who have been appointed for their expertise and experience in wildlife matters. The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to enforcing the laws protecting wildlife. A phone number is available to give any information on persons involved in crimes against wildlife. UK Borders agency (UKBA) Along with the police, the UKBA is responsible for policing and enforcing laws on the illegal importation or exportation of endangered species under CITES. Environment Agency Wildlife crime is an environmental crime and can be reported to the Environment Agency. The Agency in its enforcement duties on environmental crimes tackles wildlife offences, such as fish poaching, illegal fish re-stocking and damage to wildlife habitats. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOS) NGOS such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) work closely with the police in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime. The Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW) PAW acts as the multi-agency umbrella body for the key agencies involved in wildlife law enforcement in the UK. It provides opportunities for the police and other statutory enforcement bodies to work alongside with NGOs on wildlife crime enforcement. PAW also works to reduce wildlife crime. It comprises representatives of the main statutory and voluntary bodies with an interest in reducing wildlife crime and aims to facilitate effective enforcement, influence the improvement of legislation and raise awareness of wildlife crime. In the legal system of UK, individuals have to show that birds (and parts or derivatives) are legally in their possession. Individuals are liable in the UK. This year (2011), Scotland proposed the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act 2011, which introduces vicarious liability for wild bird persecution. This means that a land owner can be prosecuted if one of his employees or agents commits an offence against a bird on his land (section 20B126). Concrete enforcement actions Reporting of crimes
126 Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED] SP Bill 52B, Session 3 (2011).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 158 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Reporting of wildlife crime is encouraged across the society either direct to local police forces or through a dedicated phone no – “Crimestoppers”. The national Wildlife Crime Unit collates data from local police forces on wildlife crime and monitors trends.
Successful enforcement actions In recent years the Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit has recovered many rare birds of prey, which were taken from the wild illegally, and collections of wild birds eggs, as well as finch trapping equipment, and the Unit has dealt with many cases of birds being killed illegally. Scientific advances have enabled the Wildlife Crime Unit to use increasingly sophisticated techniques in the detection of wildlife crime. In one case involving a large number of Peregrine Falcons taken from the wild illegally, the Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit used DNA analysis of blood samples taken from the birds to disprove the keeper's claim that they had been bred in captivity. They have also used DNA to secure convictions in other cases involving wild birds of prey. Awareness raising Defra manages the PAW website where, amongst other information, there are a number of tools available www.defra.gov.uk/paw/tools/ PAW has an information trailer which exhibits at various events during the year (Bird Fairs, Country shows) this helps to raise awareness of wildlife crime with the general public and stakeholders. Costs may be shared between police forces, NGOs and government. Also a dedicated PAW Northern Ireland web site and information: www.dardni.gov.uk/forestservice/paw_leaflet_jan_09.pdf NWCU publishes tactical assessments which show where work is ongoing and also an annual report to detail successes. www.defra.gov.uk/paw/files/nwcu-annualreport2010.pdf
3.27.4 Good practices
The NWCU plays a key role in assisting enforcement. It is a source of expertise and advice for enforcers and can also make available one of its Investigative Support Officers to help in the investigation of particular offences To help target enforcement effort the UK sets wildlife crime priorities every two years, following a strategic assessment of UK wildlife crime carried out by the NWCU. The priorities are set taking into account the conservation status of the species concerned and the number of reports of incidents submitted to the NWCU. Most police forces now routinely submit incident reports to the NWCU, helping to ensure that the strategic assessment is based on the best information possible. Incident reports are also submitted by NGOs and Government Departments and Agencies. The Irish and Scottish governments are to work together to tackle the illegal poisoning of golden and white-tailed eagles and other birds of prey. Fourteen of the 55 white-tailed eagles introduced
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 159 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
to Killarney National Park as part of a novel conservation project have died, seven of them from poisoning. The tourism industry in Kerry is strongly supporting the project, which has been put under serious threat by the killings. However, another 15 to 20 eagles are due to be released next month in Killarney as part of the five-year project. Scottish Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham has now written to Irish Environment Minister John Gormley seeking talks on this "unacceptable problem". Ms Cunningham wants to look at possible joint initiatives and the Irish Government has also indicated it is keen to collaborate with Scotland.
3.27.5 Main barriers
Policing decisions rest with individual chief constables and depending on other priorities in their area wildlife crime may not always be at the top of the list.
3.28 Synthesis on good practices and barriers
The main good practices and barriers that have been identified in each country are briefly underlined below. Implementation and enforcement: Good cooperation between authorities and/or with NGOs (Cyprus, Denmark, Slovakia) and countries/regions (Scotland and Ireland, Spain and Portugal in the Antidoto project) Effective cooperation lacking (Bulgaria) Specialised units are dedicated to wildlife crimes in several MS (see section 5.1), Low resources for specialised units, mostly in terms of human resources was reported for Cyprus, France, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, UK, but also lack of financial resources (Germany, France, for laboratory analysis proving poisoning in Czech Republic and for fuel in Latvia) Possible conflict of interest for inspectors that are also hunters (Greece, Slovenia) Catching offenders and proving offences: Difficulties to catch offenders (Cyprus, France, Slovakia), due to hidden activities (Czech Republic) and lack of knowledge about infringements (Denmark) In France, the burden of proof is reversed, so that the holder of a wild bird must prove it was acquired legally Killed game is written on the hunting permit and allows to check easily in Estonia
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 160 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Difficulty to enforce during the hunting season as shooting is allowed (need to check specifically bags etc.), and to separate right and wrong activities when derogations are granted (Austria, Italy, Malta, Slovenia) Involvement of organised crime (Cyprus, Italy) Awareness of the public: Targeted projects are implemented successfully in several MS (e.g. in Austria, Hungary, Malta, Italy, Spain and Portugal), often thanks to the LIFE+ programme, Traditional activities require a change in behaviours and awareness-raising (Belgium, Spain) Awareness and prioritisation by authorities, judges and prosecutors, sanctioning: A strategy against the use of poisoned baits is in place in Spain (regional and national), wildlife crime priorities are decided in the UK Staff training for policy officers and inspectors is in place in Czech Republic and Slovakia, annual seminar in Lithuania In Sweden an environmental unit is in place, with prosecutors specialised in environmental law Administrative fines can be simpler and quicker for sanctioning (France) and the decision can lead to higher fines than judicial fines (Belgium – Flanders) In Slovakia, specific bird species explicitly correspond to specific fines, that recognise the value of the species in addition to the seriousness of the offence, Low awareness and willingness to prosecute by authorities leading to low sanctions (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Spain), and/or low priority given to the issue (France, UK) Monitoring of the illegal activities: Database for illegal activities in Czech Republic (Free wings database) Stakeholder dialogue: Compensation of damages by protected species is seen as an efficient way to reduce human-wildlife conflict in Belgium and Slovakia, In Finland, an incentive system is in place to compensate reindeer herders on which grounds nesting pairs of Golden eagles are found, Joint actions are implemented in Germany, with a joint declaration by stakeholders, and an anti-poisoning round table in Hungary
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 161 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Legislation and enforcement actions
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 162 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Chapter 4: Focus on selected enforcement mechanisms
In brief: Five cases are selected. In Cyprus, while the issue remains important, efforts have been made and encouraging results have been obtained. In Southern Italy, the activities of a bird protection NGO, followed by strong enforcement actions by the authorities, have led to significant changes in honey buzzard protection. The Slovak Republic illustrates actions that can be taken at national level for improving legislation, collaboration and law enforcement. Collaboration and a specialised unit are also in place in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). In Scotland the implementation of vicarious liability may help resolve issues.
In this chapter, a focus on specific enforcement cases is made, based on information provided at the Larnaca conference on illegal bird killing and on information gathered from authorities in Germany. Each example is presented following the timeline or storyline, to illustrate issues and success stories in the enforcement of regulations related to illegal bird killing, trapping or trade
4.1 The Cyprus case
4.1.1 A difficult enforcement…
Cyprus represents a typical case where illegal killing of birds is an important issue, recognised by the Government, NGOs and the hunters. Laws are in place to control the issue, but their enforcement remains unsuccessful. The situation has improved, especially during the period before accessing the EU in 2004, thanks to a strong governmental will supported by the EU. However, Cyprus has received warnings from the European Commission for infringement of the BD, especially for derogations that do not fulfil the requirements of the BD. No other procedure was taken by the Commission, as Cypriot environmental laws implement the BD, and the European Commission is reluctant to interfere with sovereign enforcement. The situation is however now considered to be worsening again (according to most stakeholders). Enforcement is hampered by politics and logistics. As identified in section 3.4, manpower devoted to enforcement is insufficient, with response times that would require to be shorter, as poachers must be caught red-handed to be convicted. Even when offenders are prosecuted, courts have been reluctant to fine them more than a few hundred EUR (the maximum fine for infringements to the national law implementing the BD is 17 000 EUR). Further, poachers can be difficult to catch. Poachers employ lookouts and night guards. They have also learnt to erect small shacks on their poaching sites, because Game Fund officers need a warrant to search any “domicile”. In the time it takes to do this, the poachers can take down their
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 163 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Focus on selected enforcement mechanisms
nets and hide their electronic equipment. Because large-scale poachers are often organised criminals, the officers are also afraid of violent attacks. In 2011, the Cypriot hunting lobby, which represents the republic’s fifty thousand hunters, is supporting two parliamentary proposals to relax anti-poaching laws. One would reduce lime- stick use to a misdemeanour; the other would decriminalise the use of electronic recordings to attract birds (Franzen 2010).
4.1.2 ...with encouraging actions
As already stated in the preceding section, the Republic of Cyprus is recognised to have had positive actions to reduce poaching, even if illegal activities are still an important issue. The government was the main driver of the changes to occur, but also relied on the European Commission for support in how to implement the BD. This example shows that the EU can be a positive support to the national governments that wish to improve enforcement of the laws implementing EU legislation. Another positive action in Cyprus is the establishment of game reserves, where hunting is not permitted. The establishment and management of game reserve areas is one of the major tools used in Cyprus to reserve and manage areas for the conservation of wildlife and game species. These areas act as wildlife reservoirs, or “banks”, allowing fauna to disperse into neighbouring areas, and in effect restocking. They thereby help safeguard game species in the long-term. Two kinds of game reserves (no hunting areas) are in place. Distinctive habitats have been designated as Permanent Game Reserve, on 14 sites accounting for 76 440 ha, or 8.2% of the land area of Cyprus (including e.g. the Paphos State Forest (habitat of the Cyprus mouflon) and the two big wetlands in Cyprus, Akrotiri and Larnaka wetlands). Temporary Game Reserves represent 1 290 sites on 258 600 ha, accounting for 27.9% of the land area. They may remain in place for a number of years (1-10 years or even longer).
4.2 Stopping the poaching of Honey Buzzards and other migrating raptors in South Italy
This success story is based on the presentation of Giovanni Malara and Claudio Celada (LIPU – BirdLife) at Larnaca’s Conference127. The Messina Strait in the 1980s In 1984, the Italian bird protection NGO LIPU128 began its anti-poaching activities. At this time, illegal birds killing was a widespread activity in south Italy and the local authorities were not concerned about rampant poaching. Raptors were traditionally considered as a pest and were shot by hunters for this reason.
127 Cyprus 6-8th July 2011 - Bern Convention – European Conference on Illegal Killing of Bird 128 LIPU is the Italian member of BirdLife, see www.lipu.it
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 164 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
The 6th May 1984, LIPU planned a demonstration against poaching and the lack of involvement of the local authorities. However, the LIPU headquarters were bombed a few days before the demonstration could take place. Response from the Italian Government and role of LIPU In 1985, upon a governmental decision, The State Forest Guards (Corpo Forestale dello Stato, CFS) started patrolling the Messina Strait area (Calabrian side) during spring migration. This has contributed to dissuade poachers in this area. In addition, since 1984, LIPU has been organising volunteers camps for one month in the spring (25th April-25th May). The volunteers help detect illegal activities and promptly alert CFS, the Financial guards (Guardia di Finanza), local police (Carabinieri) and the other authorities dealing with birds illegal killing issues. But LIPU volunteers have been assaulted on several occasions, especially in the early years. This violence increased in 1990, when both CFS staff and LIPU volunteers were shot and injured, but some of the offenders have been caught and condemned. 1990: a wake-up call for local authorities This increase in violence led to an improved awareness of the issue by the Italian authorities. It became clear for local authorities and local police forces that illegal killing of birds was a crime, not just folklore. Therefore, the local authorities started to complement the CFS patrolling activity. In the meantime CFS had created a specialized body called NOA (Nucleo Operativo Antibracconaggio; anti-poaching operational unit). Pillars of LIPU strategy to fight illegal killing at the Messina Strait LIPU plays a pro-active role for the protection of birds. As prevention is not always enough, the NGO has contributed to the enforcement of law. LIPU also fought from the inside, by lobbying towards the enforcement authorities to ensure they would support them in the field. They have given them public praise for the results obtained as a motivation to stay engaged. Finally, LIPU also does a lot of public awareness raising, by explaining that illegal killing is not a minor crime. Table 4-1 Results obtained on birds illegal killing after 15 years of LIPU activities
1985 2000 Illegal Killing of Migrating Birds 2000 honey buzzards + several hundred Last 5 years LIPU estimates 200/yr (average). individuals of other species killed in spring Number of poachers in Reggio Calabria Province
Potentially active: several thousands Potentially active: several hundred/yr Since 1984 hundreds of poachers charged and/or arrested
Results In 2000, a considerable decrease of illegal birds killing was already observed (see Table 4-1 Results obtained on birds illegal killing after 15 years of LIPU activities).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 165 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Focus on selected enforcement mechanisms
Lessons learned This case highlights the following lessons learned: stopping illegal killing of birds is about convincing the decision makers at all levels that this is not a “minor” crime, organised crime is somehow involved, since sized rifles often have their serial number removed or deleted, it is also about convincing local people that their reputation is negatively impacted by illegal killing. We can trigger change especially in young generations (school and non conventional education), a frank and supportive relationship with law enforcement officers is key to success, precise statistics on the impact of illegal killing are important but they require an extra effort that is seldom compatible with patrolling the area to detect poachers and, discipline of volunteers is a must.
4.3 Enforcement of legislation to eliminate bird crime - the Slovak experience since 2000
This success story is based on the presentation of Mario Kern & Rastislav Rybanic at Lacarna’s Conference129. Situation before starting the enforcement of the legislation to eliminate bird crime In the years 2000, the protection of birds was legally declared in Slovakia but enforcement was weak. The main illegal activities recorded at this time were the following: Raptors persecution – shooting, Nest robbery (species attractive for falconry), Nest/nesting habitats destruction, Poisoning – poisoned eggs (strychnine), Poaching (mainly waterfowl), Disturbance (photographers...), Illegal trapping (passerines for breeding), Collections (eggs, dermoplastics, mainly for export).
129 Cyprus 6-8th July 2011 - Bern Convention – European Conference on Illegal Killing of Bird, see the ppt presentation available from: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/News/Cyprus/Presentations/Presentation_Slovakia_Larnaca_July2011. pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 166 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
In order to deal with the situation and enforce the legislation more effectively, the stakeholders and the Government took measures that can be synthesised in five steps. First step: Enforcement of legislation through cooperation among authorities and stakeholders The first push to change this situation was done by the NGOs. They contributed to alert the authorities of the issues regarding illegal bird killing and their importance. This awareness led to a better cooperation among the Slovak Environmental Inspection authorities, the State Nature Conservancy, the police forces and the NGOs (BirdLife Slovakia and RPS) allowing a better enforcement of the laws implementing the BD. In particular, a working group on birds was established in 2001 (work supported by EU pre-accession funds); and trainings and information exchange for police officers, inspectors and NGOs were established. Since 2005, a Special Police for environmental crime was put in place. Second Step: International cooperation After this first step, Slovakia enlarged its vision and decided to make a priority of the crimes with a transboundary impact (illegal trade, live birds, eggs, dermoplastics). An international cooperation was thus established through governmental and non-governmental contacts (i.e. RSPB was instrumental in establishing contacts). Good practices as well as information for investigation were exchanged among Slovak, British, Italian and Spanish police forces. Third Step: Changes in the legislation These newly acquired experience and investigation on bird crime cases resulted in changes in legislation, notably for five main texts: New Nature and Landscape Act, Protection Act (2002), Bylaw on public value of protected species (2003), New CITES act (2002) and, Amendments in the Criminal Code (2003, 2006). Fourth Step: Enhanced efficiency in law enforcement The authorities organised continuous training for police forces, inspectors and prosecutors since 2005, with the aim to enhance the efficiency of law enforcement. In addition, special environmental crime contact points were created in the police forces, and efforts were made to improve the coordination and cooperation among environmental inspection, the police and prosecution. In 2008, special environment prosecutors were established, with knowledge of environmental issues and especially of birds illegal killing. This has led to a better prosecution of the poaching cases. Step Five: Exemplary cases to show effective enforcement Thanks to the cooperation and awareness of the enforcement units, several bird crimes were solved since 2001, in particular crimes related to birds of prey. The first case of successful cooperation between the enforcement units was the capture and the prosecution of a criminal who robbed Golden Eagle nestlings from a nest. Another case of nest robbery was recorded in
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 167 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Focus on selected enforcement mechanisms
May 2006: two nests (6 nestlings) of Saker Falcon were robbed to be smuggled for raptor exhibitions in Western Europe. Other examples include convictions for raptor poisoning, shooting or nest destruction activities.
4.4 Task Force on criminal activity affecting the environment and food safety
The information presented here is based on the report by the Environmental Task Force of Nord Rhine Westphalia (Stabsstelle Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzkriminalität, Ministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) and Hirschfeld 2010. Situation in NRW Native raptors are protected species according to German laws. However, in the last years, the authorities received information that illegal raptor persecution is occurring; in particular on Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo), Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and Red Kite (Milvus milvus, for whose survival Germany has a specific responsibility). From 2005 to 2009, the authorities were informed of 189 offences regarding illegal activities around raptors, targeting more than 300 individuals of nine species. Enforcement of the legislation and organisation of a special task force In order to improve the situation , in November 2004, at the initiative of the Raptors Working Group of the North Rhine-Westphalia Ornithological Society (NWO), the government of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) issued an executive order reminding administrative and police units tasked with enforcing laws relevant to the maintenance of biodiversity of the legal status of raptor persecution and of the procedures to be followed in suspected cases. The order explicitly reminded officials that killing or trapping a protected species was a felony, not a misdemeanour. The aim was to ensure that investigators were aware of the gravity of the offences and would use all the legal resources at their disposal in prosecuting them. Additionally, a declaration was signed in August 2005, the “Düsseldorf Declaration Against Illegal Raptor Persecution”. Its signatories included Eckhard Uhlenberg, then NRW’s Minister of the Environment, Nature Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (MUNLV), the NWO, BUND, NABU, the Landesgemeinschaft Naturschutz (umbrella organisation of environmental organizations in NRW) and the Landesjagdverband (NRW’s hunting association). Also in 2005, MUNLV NRW’s Task Force on Environmental Crime began lending active support to police investigations of raptor persecution. The Task Force aims to support and advise investigators, prosecutors and activists in identifying and solving environmental crime. It receives support from various environmental organisations in NRW, and in particular from the Bonn- based Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS), which has established a successful working group on raptor persecution. Approximately 20 ornithologists and other members of the CABS working group follow up on reports by individuals regarding illegal activities in NRW, regularly inspect sites known to be problematic, and report violations to the authorities. The Task Force has come to serve as the primary clearinghouse for gathering information on raptor persecution in NRW.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 168 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
Box 2: Responsibilities of the Task Force on Environmental and Food Safety Crime 1. Research, compile, analyse and evaluate data and knowledge relevant to enforcement of environmental laws; consultation and support 2. Coordinate actions taken by administrative and law enforcement agencies with regard to environmental crime, in particular to harmonise measures involving multiple agencies 3. Develop and maintain active communication among institutions, agencies and organisations whose work touches on the area of environmental crime or who work primarily with related themes (particularly strong interface to Fachdezernat department of corruption and environmental crime in NRW’s state bureau of investigation, LKA). 4. Analyse and evaluate literature and case law related to environmental law enforcement 5. Educate the public on areas of Task Force responsibility 6. Organise and support educational and training programmes on topics related to environmental and food safety crime 7. Provide support in criminal cases where there is suspicion that an environmental felony or serious misdemeanour has been committed Special emphasis is placed on the prosecution of crimes that can have a negative impact on biodiversity. Proper law enforcement is a key building block in NRW’s efforts to conserve the populations of its species that have a national or international protection status. Such crimes are often considered trivial, thus reducing the risk of prosecution for perpetrators, while the potentially high profits make encourage organised crime. For this purpose, cooperation with national authorities at all levels (the Task Force is and has been in contact with the environmental authorities on the German federal and state levels as well as customs and law enforcement agencies) and with other police forces, including INTERPOL and EUROPOL is crucial A main emphasis of the Task Force’s activity continues to be the monitoring of illegal raptor persecution. The materials and documentation collected to date probably represent the most comprehensive collection of information on the subject in Germany. Despite strict regulations prohibiting the persecution of raptors and owls, birds of prey are still widely persecuted in NRW, presenting a serious threat to the survival of many species. More than 200 cases of persecution, in which several hundred raptors and owls were killed or trapped, were recorded in NRW between January 2005 and July 2010. Monitoring of these activities allows to better understand the causes, so as to target illegal activities, but also allow to gather information on the status of the populations, and may act as early-warning when strong actions are required. The concentration of cases of raptor persecution in valleys and low-lying areas where small game is abundant may indicate a link to hunting activities. The number of cases recorded in each district, for example, is directly proportional to the number of pheasants shot. Pigeon breeders and chicken farmers are also repeatedly identified as perpetrators. The most frequently
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 169 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Focus on selected enforcement mechanisms
encountered method is placement of poisoned meat. Additional techniques include trapping or attempted trapping with prohibited traps (hinged baskets designed to catch goshawks, large cage traps for crows, foothold traps, etc.) and shooting with firearms. Complexity of prosecution The issues facing the enforcement of environmental laws are complex. Biodiversity is regulated by a complex and highly differentiated corpus of law that references national, European and international law. This complexity is perhaps the main reason why conservation laws are not enforced. The field is mostly governed by regulations rather than laws, which requires an expert knowledge that the daily workload of the police and the judiciary authorities leaves little time to acquire. Given the complexity of the material and the staffing situation at the agencies responsible for investigating crimes against biodiversity, many cases have been dropped, This has been done often through reference to the German code of criminal procedures sections allowing mediation or monetary payment for misdemeanours (§§ 153 and 153a StPO). As a rule, raptor persecution is conducted in such a way that tracing crimes back to their perpetrators is virtually impossible. Most cases are closed prematurely for lack of evidence to link them to any one person. However, the few perpetrators who have been identified and indicted were drawn largely from three groups. The majority were hunters of small game on which raptors prey, while a good number were breeders of homing pigeons and other domestic fowl who sought to protect their flocks with goshawk traps and the like. In five cases, parties found guilty paid fines ranging from 600 to 3 000 EUR. One case involving a regular offender resulted in six-month prison sentence. Convicted on five accounts of killing wild species under strict protection by setting up lime sticks to trap birds, he was also ordered to refrain from keeping, buying and selling, or in any other way engaging in remunerated work with birds for a period of three years.
4.5 Potential solutions to reduce persecution of Hen harriers in the UK
In the UK, the hen harrier (Circus cyaneus, a raptor species) is a species of high conservation concern. The species is listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, the SNH’s Species Action Framework (SNH 2010) as a priority species for conservation action, on the red-list of birds of conservation concern in the UK (Eaton et al 2009) and on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). Government reports (e.g. Natural England 2008) confirm illegal persecution, primarily on land managed for intensive shooting of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus) as the primary factor preventing recovery and hence adversely affecting the conservation status of the species130. In the UK, a 20% decline in the population has been observed in the last six years131.
130 In particular, the UK Species action plan for the Hen harrier identifies as action 7.2.4 to “Reduce persecution of hen harriers by providing suitable advice to landowners / managers and encouraging compliance with legislation”, the management plan is available from: www.conwy.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/48/HenHarrierv2.pdf 131 See www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/hen-harrier-persecution.html#cr
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 170 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Legislation and enforcement actions
The main reason behind the persecution is that hen harriers are perceived to impact on red grouse populations in the UK. Land managers on grouse moors are implementing intensive management practices to maximise the density and hence shootable surplus of red grouse. These practices include medicating grouse, artificial feeding, intensive heather burning and predator control. As predators of red grouse, the presence of hen harriers can reduce the density of red grouse. The RSPB-DEFRA presentation at the Larnaca conference132 used data from the 2010 UK hen harrier survey and JNCC’s hen harrier framework, to identify a significant difference in the potential number of pairs, which could be supported in available habitat and the number actually present. In Scotland 489 pairs were recorded, compared to a potential of about 1500, while in England 12 pairs were surveyed, from a potential of 323-340. Such difference is believed to be due to persecution. While the presenters acknowledged that it is not true that most hunters commit illegal actions, data from court records show that 70% of those convicted of bird of prey persecution offences since 1990 are employed in the game shooting sector133. Tackling illegal persecution of birds of prey, including the hen harrier, is also one of the UK Government’s six wildlife crime priorities, Hen harrier framework JNCC report n°441 (JNCC 2011) analyses the factors influencing the distribution and population viability of the hen harrier. The report underlines that based on population data, land use practices and data from the RSPB wildlife crime investigations database, persecution is the most important threat to the population in the UK, as incidents (recorded as confirmed and/or probable persecution) in Scotland are occurring in hen harriers habitats (heather moorland) and are negatively correlated with nesting success. More specifically in Scotland, according to the report “there is strong evidence in five [Natural Heritage Zones] that illegal persecution is causing the failure of a majority of breeding attempts, leading to reduced occupancy and/or fewer successful nests”. Other factors also influence locally the failure of achieving favourable status for that species, including food limitation during the early breeding season and locally shortage of foraging and/or nesting habitats. The conclusions of the report underline the importance of further policy and enforcement actions to address the hen harrier-grouse moor conflict. Hen harrier dialogue group The hen harrier dialogue group aims to find a sustainable solution to improve hen harrier population growth alongside the needs of grouse moor managers. It is facilitated by the Environment Council134, and involves a range of stakeholders interested in the debate, including DEFRA, land managers and the RSPB. The aim is to resolve the hen-harrier-red grouse conflict by working together and is seen as an encouraging measure by many stakeholders. Keeping the dialogue open is important to ensure that the concerns of each stakeholder are taken to the fore, discussed, and that solutions can be found.
132 Presentation available from : www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/News/Cyprus/Presentations/DEFRA- RSPB_Larnaca_July2011.pdf 133 RSPB (2010) Birdcrime 2009: Offences Against Wild Bird Legislation in 2009, RSPB, Sandy, UK. 134 For further information see www.the-environment-council.org.uk/projects/nature/natural-areas.html
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 171 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Focus on selected enforcement mechanisms
Langholm Moor Demonstration Project A demonstration project135 was launched in 2007 which aims to demonstrate that economically viable driven grouse shooting and hen harriers can co-exist. The project is run by SNH, Buccleuch Estates, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), RSPB and Natural England. Measures taken at the site include habitat management, legal control of predators (without harming protected species), disease control, diversionary feeding (to limit the number of grouse chicks killed by hen harriers), and possible release of red grouse. It includes well-defined ecological monitoring to assess the results of the project. Initial results suggest diversionary feeding can reduce hen harrier predation of grouse by up to 86% (1998-1999 data). Vicarious liability in Scotland In Scotland, the Wildlife and Natural Environment (WANE) Act (2011) includes new steps by the Scottish Government to help tackle wildlife crime. The text introduces a “vicarious liability” offence with relation to wild bird killing or taking, which makes landowners responsible for the criminal actions of their employees or agents. The liability applies where a person has “a legal right to kill or take a wild bird on or over that land”; or “manages or controls the exercise of any such right”, with someone acting as the employee or agent committing an offence. That person (i.e. the landowner) is then also considered guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, whether or not the employee or agent is. The landowner may show as a defence that he/she “did not know that the offence was being committed”, and that he/she “took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence being committed”. The RSPB and others, have previously stated that while the majority of criminal convictions for these types of offences involve gamekeepers or other land managers, it is believed that it is the landowners who direct them or require them to break the law and kill hen harriers. Vicarious liability is seen as a measure to focus prosecution on the people ultimately responsible for these criminal acts. Law enforcement At the presentation in Larnaca, law enforcement was identified as one of the main solutions to the issue, with the police National Wildlife Crime Unit having six wildlife crime priorities, one of which is bird of prey persecution with six species prioritised. While it was recognised that the law alone cannot solve all the issues and that in particular dialogue, incentives and awareness-raising are necessary, the speakers argued that no environmental problem can be solved without effective enforcement of the law. Importance of dialogue The importance of dialogue was also underlined as a conclusion to the presentation, ensuring that stakeholders can raise their concerns and that solutions can be found.
135 For further information see www.langholmproject.com/
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 172 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Conclusions and recommendations
Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations
In brief: While implementation of the BD is rather well implemented in the MS, enforcement remains an issue to fight Illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds, which entails a number of inherent challenges for detection, prosecution and punishment. Common work by bird protection NGOs and hunters associations, which have a common interest in reducing the issue, must continue to be promoted. Awareness-raising and training of both all interested parties, including the public, hunters, farmers, fishermen, rural inhabitants, tourists, etc.; and all links of the enforcement chain, including police officers, prosecutors, judges, etc. must increase. Economic ways to incentivise the protection of birds must be found, such as eco-tourism.
In this section, the general findings drawn from the presentation of the situation in each MS are presented, followed by recommendations for reducing illegal bird killing at national or EU level. They address the main barriers uncovered in the study and typically build on existing initiatives at EU level or propose to disseminate a best practice found in, or proposed by, a MS.
5.1 Findings of the study
A rather good implementation of the BD, lacking strong enforcement The Birds Directive is rather well implemented in the 27 MS, as regards the inclusion of the requirements of the articles 5, 6, 7 and 8. The main legal texts through which the BD is implemented are: texts on nature conservation and species protection, texts on hunting and, texts on criminal or penal sanctions (e.g. criminal or penal code where legislation is codified). But this directive is poorly enforced in many MS. This seems to be due to a number of combined factors. First of all, by definition, illegal activities are difficult to identify. This is made more difficult as illegal activities on wildlife occur in open, wide areas, that are not always easily accessible. Second, in many cases it is difficult to catch the offenders, prove their responsibility and even when this is done, to obtain that they are prosecuted and sanctioned. Third, above the enforcement issues, the drivers of illegal killing, trapping and trade must be targeted, including politicians that make statements mixing traditional and illegal activities, customers (including consumers of birds, taxidermists, collectors), stakeholders involved in possibly competing activities (e.g. farmers, hunters, fishermen), the wider public, including tourists, etc. Solutions to
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 173 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Conclusions and recommendations
allow for the continuation of legal and economically sustainable activities while preserving nature must also be found. A different type of barrier, nonetheless important, is the fact that the issue is very polarised. While it must be recognised that constructive efforts are made by many parties (the Larnaca conference of the Bern Convention or the sustainable hunting initiative in the EU are good examples of stakeholders working together to solve the issue), the stigmatisation of hunters and extreme discourse of some bird protection NGOs contribute to the difficulty of obtaining a fully objective view of the issue. The fact that many offenders are hunters does not mean that hunters in general must be stigmatised, and the efforts of a majority of hunters must be recognised as positive for fighting illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds. Specialised field units in some MS In order to identify the illegal activities occurring, a specialised field unit can be in place. This unit is generally acting as a support to other police forces, providing expert advice and knowledge about environmental or more specifically wildlife crimes. Only 10 EU countries were identified to have such special unit devoted to wildlife crime (see Table 5-1), and these are often understaffed and/or lacking sufficient financial resources. Note that Germany was not included as only one “Land” has a specialised unit. Technical training and material is also needed to identify and catch offenders. France, Italy and Greece stand out with more than 300 people in environmental special units, which could be sufficient workforce to cover all the country and to respond rapidly and efficiently to a reported offence. However, these special units are often in charge of much more than bird issues, or even wildlife protection issues. In France for instance additional responsibilities are regularly given to the ONCFS in different environmental fields, including pollution issues, etc. Where the collaboration between the police forces and the specialised unit is effective, and possibly training of these forces, lower human resources may also be required in the specialised units. In addition, the organisation and funding of these units are quite different as they can be public organisations (e.g. France) or organised and funded by the hunters directly (e.g. Greece). Another difference is whether they are under the Ministry for Environment, the Ministry in charge of hunting, or linked to the police (Ministry of Interior). Such differences will impact their image and thus how efficient they are considered by the stakeholders. This also underlines the need for an efficient collaboration and coordination of efforts between stakeholders of the enforcement chain in each country. Table 5-1 Specialised wildlife/environmental units in place in the EU and their staff resources and yearly budget. MS without special units are not mentioned in the table. Staff resources and yearly budget MS Special unit name (when available) Anti-poaching unit of the Police 16 FTE Department and Control (Wallonia) Belgium Nature Inspectorate of the Agency for 26 full time inspectors Nature and Forests (Flanders)
Cyprus Game and Fauna Department 90 staff members
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 174 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Conclusions and recommendations
Staff resources and yearly budget MS Special unit name (when available)
Anti-poaching unit of the police 10 staff members
9,4 equivalent full time of staff Estonia Environmental Inspectorate members 1 700 staff members and a yearly France ONCFS budget of 120 million EUR 220 permanent hunting guards + 120 Greece Federal Hunting Guards seasonal
Game Guard Body 400 Game Guards Italy Game wardens Not found
Fauna Use Control Division of the EPA 7 staff members Lithuania 8 units with 5 to 10 staff members per Wildlife Protection Inspection Unit unit
Malta Administrative Law Enforcement Unit (ALE) around 25 staff members
Special unit on the Presidium Police that Slovakia Not found includes the bird crime issue
UK National wildlife crime unit 15 staff members
Difficulties to catch and prove offences As illustrated in Cyprus, specialised units may have difficulties to catch offenders and prove their offences. Indeed, the legislation requires that the offenders are caught red-handed to allow for prosecution. This explains why sufficient resources for field units are required to efficiently deal with the offenders. The issue of liability is important here, as in most countries the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Thus the environmental or police authorities must prove that the bird has been caught illegally, which is quite difficult. Reversing that burden, as in France, where the persons must prove that they have acquired the bird legally on the EU territory (or that it comes from elsewhere, in which case no other proof than provenance is required) may be very useful for more effective actions. Vicarious liability such as introduced recently in Scotland may also be part of the solution, with landowners being responsible. However, as much of the illegal activities occur on public grounds, that kind of liability is not effective everywhere. Need for further awareness and prioritisation of wildlife crimes by judges and prosecutors Beyond the specialisation of field units, the following stakeholders of the enforcement chain must ensure that offenders are punished. This survey revealed that even when they are caught, the offenders are rarely sentenced. The main reason seems to be that judges and procurers are not sufficiently aware of the importance of the issue of illegal killing of birds, whether in terms of
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 175 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Conclusions and recommendations
biodiversity loss or in terms of the money and involvement of organised crime. They are often overbooked and these cases often fall at the bottom of their priorities. In order to overcome this issue, awareness-raising or even training and specialisation of prosecutors and judges may be implemented. Slovakia has developed a programme to train prosecutors about environmental crimes, who are then able to fight more efficiency against birds illegal activity. Such training could be organised in other MS. In Sweden, prosecutors specialised in environmental law are grouped in a specialised environmental unit, such units could also be spread to other MS. While the link is not always direct, a better enforcement of the fines could provide more money and would allow the government to better fund its enforcement units, whether at field or judicial levels. Lack of monitoring data, and of data considered robust by all stakeholders, The issues linked to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds involve very passionate debates with stakeholders that have differing interests to defend. In order to allow for objective and rational decision-making, objective data would be required to assess the extent of the problem and the drivers, to find robust solutions. However, while data is available that show that there are issues, precise data that are considered robust by all stakeholders are not yet available. Illegal activities are by definition not monitored, but as regards illegal bird killing, trapping and trade, little information seems to be available about convictions, number of birds found dead or trapped, results of Court trials, etc. Actual databases recording illegal activities were identified for the Wallonia region in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France and Slovakia, even though monitoring was reported to occur in more countries (see Table 2-1 on p.45). Even where data is available, it is difficult to obtain an objective data basis for discussion between the stakeholders concerned. For example in the Czech Republic, the database is held by a bird protection NGO. The Greek hunting guards presented data about illegal activities at the Larnaca conference. This raises two kinds of issues. First, the government cannot always easily access the databases. In addition, these data are regularly disputed by opposing parties, i.e. bird protection NGOs question the hunting guards data and the hunters consider the bird protection NGO data biased. Even in France, where the data are collected by an independent organisation (ONCFS), the figures remain disputed between different parties, illustrating that the polarisation continues even in governmental authorities with units attached to the different Ministries. Hunters are often involved in the disputes because these data provide inputs for the decisions on what the hunting quotas will be during the following year. Need for consultation and common solutions In certain MS the issues may be characterised as being the result of human-wildlife conflicts. For example poisoning of raptors considered to be predators of game birds, or of birds that may be feeding in agricultural fields and/or on fishing grounds. Dialogue putting together the main stakeholders interested in the activities is recognised as being an important step towards finding common solutions, as illustrated e.g. in the Hen harrier dialogue group (section 4.5) and demonstration projects can be useful to test possible measures (same section).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 176 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Conclusions and recommendations
Another means of action is to link subsidies to the presence of protected birds, as is done in Finland (see section 3.8). Lastly, as identified in the Cyprus and Greek examples, tourism, possibly including bird-watching activities, may be promoted as an alternative activity to illegal trapping and killing.
5.2 Recommendations
Building on the conclusions, recommendations are drafted here, targeting three levels of actions, while focussing mainly on how the European Commission can support MS in better enforcing the BD to reduce illegal killing, trapping and trade in the EU, and reach the targets of the EU biodiversity strategy. The most important message is that the collaborative and constructive work of bird protection NGOs and hunters association to combat the issue must be continued and supported by national, EU and international levels. Awareness of all stakeholders, including politicians, the media, the wide public, hunters, fishermen, farmers, rural inhabitants, etc. must be raised to highlight with precise examples the loss of biodiversity occurring and the involvement of organised crimes in many areas.
5.2.1 At national level
Awareness-raising of the local issues and illegal actions Raising awareness about the issues occurring in the MS is a necessary means to tackle the issues, by underlining those activities that are illegal, the sanctions that may be incurred (through a deterrent effect) and illustrating the threats to birds and the environment in general. Through national level implementation the main drivers and stakeholders identified may be targeted for an effective communication campaign. Improvement and enforcement of the regulations The MS may implement the ideas seen in certain countries for improving the legislation, for example reversing the burden of proof, envisaging vicarious liability, or linking subsidies to the presence of certain species. Additionally, the experiences in training and collaboration between specialised units, the police, customs, prosecutors, judges, etc. can be disseminated in further MS (see also EU section). Another possible way to control illegal activities would be to increase areas in which hunting is banned, or to work on the periods of hunting. This could be done either by shortening the hunting periods, but this seems unrealistic as in many cases hunters consider that period too short already. Alternatively, an harmonisation of the hunting periods of different bird species, could help reduce illegal killing of the wrong species during period in which other species may be killed. This could also help enforcement, as it would be easier to identify shooting activities in illegal areas or during illegal periods for instance. A potential solution to avoid the congestions phenomena at the entrance of courts would be to give more power to the field enforcement units. Currently those units have administrative
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 177 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Conclusions and recommendations
powers and can decide about small sanctions only. Giving them more powers could be a way to ensure their actions are more effective in dissuading poachers. In Flanders (Belgium) the administrative fines decided by a specialised unit are shown to be higher than the judicial fines. Human, financial and material resources for enforcement The lack of human, financial and material resources is an issue that can only be addressed at MS level, and which depends also on the local situation. In MS where the issue is minor or regionalised, the needs are different than in transit countries, where the involvement of customs, and border controls are important, or than in countries were the issue is more widespread. Additionally, the species targeted and types of issues are different and require different means to deal with them.
5.2.2 At EU level
Support MS in enforcing the BD Enforcement is considered to be left to the national sovereignty of the MS, but as shown in the example of Cyprus, the national governments that have the will to change the situation can be helped by the European Commission to enforce the regulation. It is important also to ensure that situations that have improved do not worsen later with lower attention given to the issue. The EU can support MS in enforcing the BD, by providing guidance on interpretation (formally and informally), disseminating best practices, implementing training sessions at EU level, or funding projects (e.g. through INTERREG and LIFE+). Additionally, requests and statements from the Commission highlighting that the issue is considered important from its point of view may be helpful in giving higher priorities to the issue at national level, and provide good examples of how to bring stakeholders around the table. Increase awareness of the general public and involved stakeholders about the issue More promotion activities pointing out the scale of the problem in order to make the public aware of the issue would be useful. In addition, people that are potentially involved in illegal activities (notably hunters, farmers, collectors of birds, taxidermists and falconers) should be more and better educated about these acts. As done in the Finnish case, introducing a requirement linked to the presence of birds, rewarding positive activities by farmers and decreasing negative activities, may also be implemented in agri-environmental measures. Awareness-raising of the general public and specific projects are already funded by the EU (see Table 1-2), and would benefit from further support funding through Life+, possibly widening them to EU campaigns. Supporting sustainable tourism may be another possibility. As identified in Cyprus and Greece, many birdwatchers are potential tourists. Their main tourism motivation may be to watch some of the illegally targeted birds, especially the rarest most endangered ones, thereby providing a direct incentive for the protection of these species. Sustainable tourism may also provide new resources to the poachers in rural areas, providing further incentives for the protection of birds.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 178 | tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Conclusions and recommendations
On the contrary, concerned tourists and specifically birdwatchers may avoid travelling to areas in which illegal bird killing is a known issue. The species and issues in different MS, while different, all concern bird species and some issues are quite similar. In particular, raptor control is shown to be a major threat to birds of prey in the EU (BirdLife, 2011). EU-wide campaigns could thus be envisaged on the issue. Increase awareness of the enforcement authorities One general feedback during this survey is the general lack of awareness of the enforcement authorities such as police officers and judges, which are rarely aware of the importance of this issue and often consider these illegal practices as secondary crimes. To increase their awareness, exchanges between countries to promote good practices could be developed. Programmes to train legal practitioners are already in place in the EU136, to raise awareness about the interaction between EU legislative instruments and national legislation. Specific training could be organised to help them enforce better the legislative tools regarding illegal birds killing, trapping and trade. Other organisations, that may not be directly linked to the Commission, could have a role to play, and the Commission could be influential in proposing to raise the priority of targeting wildlife protection and in particular bird protection in their programmes. Those organisations include IMPEL137, the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law, and possibly EUROPOL (that could, similar to INTERPOL, organise a special environmental crime unit138). IMPEL is already very active in improving enforcement of environmental activities in the EU and organises e.g. joint activities between enforcement authorities of different MS or exchange of individuals, that are efficient in disseminating best practices across the EU. Issue of bird trade and link to CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade regulations To date, a certificate is required only for the trade of bird species listed in CITES and implemented in the EU through regulation (338/97139 and 865/2006140). A similar document could be envisaged for protected species. Such a document would be required to show that the specimen is legally acquired, owned and transported. For instance nationally protected birds that may not be hunted at any time could be required to be accompanied by such a document. This document would then be required for trading with these birds. Finally, as the pattern and practices of illegal trade is very similar between CITES and non-CITES species, the discussion on this problem within EU CITES Enforcement Group meetings might also be helpful. The EU TWIX database141 (Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange) allows national law enforcement agencies throughout the EU to detect, analyse and monitor illegal activities related to trade in fauna and flora covered by the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. The possibility to widen
136 Further information is available from: ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/european-judicial-training/index_en.htm 137 Further information is available from: impel.eu 138 See www.interpol.int/en/Crime-areas/Environmental-crime/Environmental-crime 139 Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein 140 Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 141 Further information available from: http://www.eutwix.org/Default.aspx
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 179 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Conclusions and recommendations
this platform to encompass further species, and notably those targeted by illegal trapping, killing and trade, is being investigated by the European Commission. Increase reporting about the issue The EU has reporting in place based on the requirements of Article 12 of the BD. However, it is notable that only Cyprus mentions anything linked to illegal activities and poaching in its report (EC 2009). Further and more precise information on illegal activities occurring, trends in birds found dead or trapped etc. would be helpful in understanding the issue better and gathering data recognised by all stakeholders as being robust. The new reporting format adopted recently will include a paragraph on threats that should be improving the reporting. Additionally, data on the status of the species could be enhanced, to allow for informed debates between stakeholders. Implementing a common EU database would be a possible way to improve reporting of the issue, but also to identify more easily organised crime around bird killing, trapping and trade and exchange best practices of enforcement. It could also help identifying experts about the issue and the right person to contact in case of transboundary issues (e.g. hunters from MS A carrying out illegal activities in MS B). Another issue that must be recognised when working on reporting is the scale at which the data are reported. Indeed, to understand the drivers of bird mortality specific data targeting a particular species and its context are required. When reporting about wildlife crimes, the data are often aggregated for all animal species. A third scale is the recognition that illegal killing, trapping and trade is an issue for many bird species in many EU countries. Other actions to implement to reduce drivers of bird losses The focus of this study was on illegal activities that endanger birds. However, the derogations provided to MS according to Art. 9 of the BD complicate enforcement. Indeed, they decrease the clarity about what is legal or not for authorities and judges, as well as the public. There is thus a need for the MS and EC to review the derogations, especially on the use of unselective killing methods (lime sticks, crush traps), killing of non-huntable species and raptor control. Such exceptions to the BD endanger its enforcement in other countries and hinder the proper prosecution of bird crime. What is legal in one MS can hardly be a serious crime in another MS. Instead of new derogations, which often serve to legalise currently illegal killing methods or permit the killing of protected species, the Member States should promote enforcement of the BD based on best practice examples and experience of successful change (for example, see the focus on the Italian situation in the Messina strait in section 4.2). Actions that may be implemented through dialogue between stakeholders (as in the context of the former Sustainable Hunting Initiative) The Sustainable Hunting Initiative was a collaboration between hunters and bird protection NGOs at EU level. The idea behind this initiative now remains and actions to resolve local conflicts are still required. Both parties are concerned by illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds and benefit from reducing the issue. Bird protection NGOs are involved for the better protection of birds, and hunters benefit in improving the sustainability of their activity, and by gaining an image of participants to the protection of EU biodiversity. Joint lobbying proved to be successful in Germany and could be implemented in other MS.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 180 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Conclusions and recommendations
Another action that would be useful to implement would be the organisation of an EU-wide awareness programme in all MS to stop illegal poisoning; as well as the use of illegal and unselective means of killing such as lime sticks and crush traps; and enforce the BD, HD and Charter on Sustainable Hunting. The number of birds killed in the EU by direct human intervention, whether legally, accidentally or illegally, is unknown. More efforts are needed to verify that bird populations are healthy and that their use is sustainable based on population trends, bag statistics and assessments of other losses including those from poaching and poisoning.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 181 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
References
References
Anima (2011) Illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in Greece. Poster presented at the Bern Convention – European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, Larnaca Cyprus. BirdLife (July 2011) Review of the illegal killing and trapping of birds in Europe. Available from: www.seo.org/media/docs/Report_IKB_FINAL.pdf BirdLife Cyprus and RSPB (2011) Bird Trapping in Cyprus - Autumn 2010. Report on the latest results of BirdLife International’s continuing monitoring of illegal bird trapping in Cyprus. By MA Hellicar and MLJ White. EC (2009) Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds Part I. EU Composite Report in accordance with Article 12 Period covered: 2005-2007. EU (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 Fielding A, Haworth P, Whitfield P, McLeod D and Riley H (2011) A Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. JNCC Report 441. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. - jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/jncc441.pdf Hirschfeld A (2010) Illegale Greifvogelverfolgung in Nordrhein-Westfalen in den Jahren 2005 bis 2009. Charadrius 1 – 2: 89 – 101. Hirschfeld A and Heyd A (2005) Mortality of migratory birds caused by hunting in Europe: bag statistics and proposals for the conservation of birds and animal welfare. Ber. Vogelschutz 42: 47- 74 Hirschfeld A. (2010): Illegale Greifvogelverfolgung in Nordrhein-Westfalen in den Jahren 2005 bis 2009. Charadrius 1 – 2: 89 – 101. JNCC (2011) A Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. By Alan Fielding, Paul Haworth, Phil Whitfield, David McLeod and Helen Riley,JNCC Report N°441, February 2011, available from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/jncc441.pdf Kendall E and Knott J (2011) Illegal killing of birds of prey in the UK: Conservation impacts and possible solutions. (DEFRA) (RSPB) Bern Convention – European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, Larnaca Cyprus: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/News/Cyprus/Cyprus_en.asp Krauß B (2011) Illegale Greifvogelverfolgung in Baden-Württemberg. NaturschutzInfo1/2011: 17 – 23. Krone O (2011) Bleivergiftung bei Greifvögeln – Ursachen, Erfahrungen und Lösungsmöglichkeiten. Der Seeadler als Indikator. Lebniz-Institut für Zoo- und Wildtierforschung (IZW).
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 182 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU References
Langemach T, Sömmer P, Block B and Dürr T (2009) Long-term mortality studies of birds of prey and owls in the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany. Populationsökologie Greifvögel- und Eulenarten, Bd. 6: 137 – 156. Le Gall O (2011) Ortolan bunting poaching in SW-France. When illegality is endorsed by the legal authorities. LPO Aquitaine, Bern Convention – European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, Larnaca Cyprus: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/News/Cyprus/Cyprus_en.asp Malara and Celada (2011): Stopping the poaching of Honey Buzzards and other migrating raptors in South Italy: a success story. LIPU – BirdLife Italy, 6-8th July 2011 - Bern Convention – European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, Larnaca Cyprus: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/News/Cyprus/Cyprus_en.asp. Natural England 2008. A future for the hen harrier in England? Natural England, Sheffield. www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/hen_harrier_report221208_tcm6-9451.pdf Picher V (2011) Potential impact of lead intoxication on the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Germany. In: Krone O (Hrsg.) (2011) Lead intoxication in birds of prey. Causes, experiences potential solutions. Leibniz-Institut für Zoo und Wildtierforschung, Berlin. Redpath S, Amar A, Smith A, Thompson DBA and Thirgood S (2010) People and nature in conflict: can we reconcile hen harrier conservation and game management. In, Baxter JM & Galbraith CA (eds), Species Management: Challenges and Solutions for the 21st Century. TSO, Edinburgh. www.gwct.org.uk/documents/2010redpathsspecmanab.pdf Rutigliano, A. (2009) Research and investigation operations into bird trapping with lime sticks in the Bouches-du-Rhone region, France cabs - committee against bird slaughter. Bonn, 3 December 2009 Shialis T (2011) Cyprus bird trapping surveillance project: Winter 2010/11. Covering the latest findings of BirdLife International’s continuing monitoring programme of illegal bird trapping in Cyprus. Date: April 2011. Council of Europe. www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/News/Cyprus/Cyprus_en.asp . Shine C (2010) Interpretation of Article 9 of the Bern Convention. Bern Convention – Standing Committee Dec. 2010, T-PVS/Inf (2010) 16 Smart J, Amar A, Sim IMV, Etheridge B, Cameron D, Christie G, Wilson JD (2010): Illegal killing slows population recovery of a re-introduced raptor of high conservation concern – The red kite Milvus milvus. Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 1278–1286 Traffic (2008) The illegal trade in wild birds for food through South-east and Central Europe. Whitfield DP, Fielding AH, McLeod DRA and Haworth PF (2008) Conservation framework for golden eagles: implications for their conservation and management in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.193.(ROAME No. F05AC306). www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/Report%20No193.pdf
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 183 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 1: Prohibited means and methods of killing, capture and other forms of exploitation for birds listed in the Bern Convention and the Birds Directive
ANNEX IV OF THE BERN CONVENTION: Snares142 Limes Hooks Live birds used as decoys which are blind or mutilated Tape recorders Electrical devices capable of killing and stunning Artificial light sources Mirrors and other dazzling devices Devices for illuminating targets Sighting devices for night shooting comprising an electronic image magnifier or image converter Explosives Nets Traps Poison and poisoned or anaesthetic bait Semi-automatic or automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition Aircraft Motor vehicles in motion
ANNEX IV OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE:
Snares (with the exception of Finland and Sweden for the capture of Lagopus lagopus lagopus and Lagopus mutus north of latitude 58° N), limes, hooks, live birds which are blind or mutilated used as decoys, tape recorders, electrocuting devices,
142 Except Lagopus north of latitude 58° N /excepté Lagopus nord de latitude 58° N
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 184 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
artificial light sources, mirrors, devices for illuminating targets, sighting devices for night shooting comprising an electronic image magnifier or image converter, explosives, nets, traps, poisoned or anaesthetic bait, semi-automatic or automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition , aircraft, motor vehicles boats driven at a speed exceeding five kilometres per hour. On the open sea, Member States may, for safety reasons, authorise the use of motor-boats with a maximum speed of 18 kilometres per hour. Member States shall inform the Commission of any authorisations granted.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 185 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 2: Main bird species listed in the Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and concerned by illegal killing143, trapping and trade
Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk
Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher
Aquila heliaca Eastern Imperial Eagle
Bubo bubo Eurasian Eagle-owl
Calonectris diomedea Cory's Shearwater
Charadrius morinellus Eurasian Dotterel
143 Including killing by poison
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 186 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Ciconia ciconia White Stork
Circus aeruginosus Western Marsh-harrier
Circus pygargus Montagu's Harrier
Coracias garrulus European Roller
Emberiza hortulana Ortolan Bunting
Falco cherrug Saker Falcon
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 187 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Fringilla sp. Finches
Grus grus Common Crane
Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle
Melanocorypha calandra Calandra Lark
Milvus milvus Red Kite
Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night Heron
Oenanthe cypriaca Cyprus Pied Wheatear
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 188 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Pandion haliaetus Osprey
Pernis apivorus European Honey Buzzard
Picus canus Grey-headed Woodpecker
Eurasian Spoonbill or Platalea leucorodia Common Spoonbill
Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove
Tadorna tadorna . Shelduck
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 189 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 3: Questionnaires sent to Ornis Committee
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 190 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 191 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 192 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 193 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 194 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 195 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 4: List of countries and Institutions which answered the questionnaire
Country Institution
Austria Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Belgium (Flemish Flemish Government, Agency for Nature and Forests region only)
Bulgaria Ministry of Environment National Nature Protection Directorate
Cyprus Game & Fauna Service, Game Fund Service, Ministry of Interior
Czech Republic Ministry of the Environment
Denmark Nature Agency, Danish Ministry of Environment
Estonia Ministry of the Environment
France Ministry of the Environment
Germany Ministry for Environment
Ministry of the Environment, Energy & Climatic Cahnge, Forestry Greece Service, Dept. of Aesthetic Forests, National Parks & Wildlife Management
Hungary Ministry of Rural Development
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts Heritage and the Ireland Gaeltacht, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Italy Direzione per la Protezione della Natura e del Mare Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, Protected Areas Lithuania and Landscape Department
Luxembourg LNVL - BirdLife Luxembourg
Ministry for sustainable development and Infrastructure, Environmental Luxembourg Department
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 196 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Country Institution
Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation
General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Department for Poland Nature Protection
Poland Ministry of the Environment Department of Forestry
Portugal Institute of Nature Conservation and Biodiversity - Environment Ministry
Romania Biodiversity Directorate, Ministry of Environment and Forests
Slovak Republic Ministry of the Environment
Slovenia Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning
Ministry of Environment and Marine and Rural Affairs, Biodiversity Spain General Subdirectorate
Sweden Swedish Environmental Agency (section for Wildlife management)
Biodiversity Programme, Department for Environment, Food and Rural UK Affairs. Biodiversity Programme, Department for Environment, Food and Rural UK (England) Affairs.
UK (Scotland) Scottish Government Rural Directorate
UK (Scotland) Scottish Government
Biodiversity Programme, Department for Environment, Food and Rural UK (Wales) Affairs. To date only four countries have not sent their answer yet: Finland, Latvia, and Malta
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 197 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 5: Data collected about the illegal activities of birds in each Member States, according to the questionnaire only
Data on Data on Data on birds Data on Data on birds killed birds birds Data on bird Sanction and fines Country poisoned illegal trade illegally trapped illegally illegally kept given illegally of birds illegally captured - Number of birds illegally Austria killed - Number of dead birds - Number of - Number of birds illegally birds - Number of illegal Belgium killed illegally activities identified trapped Bulgaria - Number of illegal activities identified - Number of birds caught - Amount of fines Cyprus in the cases taken to Court collected - Number of people convicted - Type of illegal activity which lead to the killing - Bird species - Laboratory CZ of birds - Number of birds killed analysis - Cases investigate by the police
Denmark
198 Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Data on Data on Data on birds Data on Data on birds killed birds birds Data on bird Sanction and fines Country poisoned illegal trade illegally trapped illegally illegally kept given illegally of birds illegally captured - Number of dead Estonia protected species only - Number of infractions recorded by the France police but all the animals are grouped Germany - Statistical data (rather incomplete) on hunting Greece Law offences collected by the Forestry Service. - Number and species of - Number of birds illegally killed: data administrative sanctions collected by the Ministry given Hungary - Location and cause of the - Number of illegal death: data collected by activities, NGO amount of fines, - Details of individual birds killed including location and results of any post mortems carried out on Ireland the dead birds. - The Department of Arts, Heritage and Local Government is also in the process of setting out a
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 199 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Data on Data on Data on birds Data on Data on birds killed birds birds Data on bird Sanction and fines Country poisoned illegal trade illegally trapped illegally illegally kept given illegally of birds illegally captured new centralised database to record details of deaths of birds of prey. - Number of Government Departments and Agencies finalise a post mortem protocol to investigate the deaths of birds of prey and other wildlife. Data originating from bird Italy recovery centres - Number of administrative sanctions given - Number of illegal activities identified. - Regional Nature Protection Departments Lithuania (RNPD) annually send the report about the number of administrative sanctions given and number of illegal activities identified to the Environment Protection Agency
200 Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Data on Data on Data on birds Data on Data on birds killed birds birds Data on bird Sanction and fines Country poisoned illegal trade illegally trapped illegally illegally kept given illegally of birds illegally captured - NGO wild care center Luxembourg provides this figures to the authorities - Data - Data collection - Data collection collection for for wild birds of for birds of prey wild birds of Netherlands prey and owls by local working prey and owls from NGOs group from NGOs reports reports - species killed - Cause of death when possible - Data concern numbers of game animals harvested illegally in Poland in Poland hunting areas (managed or leased) - For Eagle Conservation Committee: data is gathered only regarding birds of prey and owls Romania - Number of - Number of killing/ birds - Number of Slovakia shooting birds illegally poisoned birds trapped
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 201 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Data on Data on Data on birds Data on Data on birds killed birds birds Data on bird Sanction and fines Country poisoned illegal trade illegally trapped illegally illegally kept given illegally of birds illegally captured - Number of birds poisoned - Number of events of Spain poisoning - Type of chemical product employed All protected birds that are killed or found dead are the property of the state and must be reported to Sweden the police authorities. The Police are forwarding the animals to the Swedish Museum of Natural History - UNWCU keep - UK National Wildlife - UNWCU records of some - UNWCU Crime Unit keep records of keep incidents of birds keep records - Incidents of wildlife incidents of birds records of poisoned of some crime are reported to the killed/disturbed/ shot some illegally. UK prosecutions police force in the area in illegally. Number of birds incidents of - Types of of birds which the offence has killed; birds poisons used taken occurred. - Number of dead birds trapped - Number of illegally reported etc illegally. dead birds reported etc
202 Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 203 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 6: Illegal practices affecting the conservation status of the European bird species
Species under Killing Killing for unfavourable European Illegal Illegal for Poison human conservation status (SPEC trapping Trade control consumption 1-2-3)144 predator Aegypius monachus x x Alauda arvensis x x x x Anthus campestris x Aquila adalbertI x Aquila chrysaetos x x Aquila heliacal x x Athene noctua x x Bubo bubo x
Buteo rufinus x x Calandrella brachydactyla x
Carduelis cannabina x x Circus cyaneus x x x Coturnix coturnix x
Crex crex x Emberiza hortelana x x Falco biarmicus x
Falco cherrug x x Falco eleonorae x Falco naumanni x Falco tinnunculus x Galerida cristata x
144 Based oin the report of BirdLife (2011): Review of the illegal killting and trapping of birds in Europe – a report of the BirdLife Partnership. European Conference on illegal killing of Birds Larnaca, Cyprus (6-8 July), Strasbourg T- PVS/Inf (2011)xx.
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 204 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Species under Killing Killing for unfavourable European Illegal Illegal for Poison human conservation status (SPEC trapping Trade control consumption 1-2-3)144 predator
Gypaetus barbatus x Haliaetus albicilla x x Hieraaetus fasciatus x x x
Hieraaetus pennatus x x Ketupa zeylonensis x Melanocorypha calandra x x x
Merops apiaster x x Miliaria calandra x Milvus migrans x x Milvus milvus x x Monticola saxatilis x Monticola solitarius x Neophron percnopterus x x Otus stops x
Pelecanus crispus x Pelecanus onocrotalus x Phoenicurus phoenicurus x
Scolopax rusticola x Tyto alba x x Upupa epops x
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 205 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Annex 7: Scoring system used by BirdLife to evaluate the importance of illegal activities
The following table present the scoring system used by BirdLife in its report ‘Review of the illegal killing and trapping of birds in Europe’, July 2011 (BirdLife, 2011).
Score Scale Conservation impact Trend Availability of data
0 Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Decreased a Poor quality based on 1 Local/rare Very low, negligible lot anecdotal evidence 2 Local Low Decreased Widespread Good evidence but no records 3 Moderate No change but rare kept Widespread 4 High Increased and common Widespread Increased a Good quality systematised 5 Very high and abundant lot data
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 206 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Annex 8: Second questionnaire related to the enforcement practices
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 207 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 208 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 209 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 210 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 211 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 212 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU Annexes
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for | 213 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
Annexes
This page is left intentionally blank
Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for 214 tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU
30 December 2011 20-22 Villa Deshayes 75014 Paris + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 biois.com