1

ANALYSIS OF EU MEMBER STATE

CITES BIENNIAL REPORTS 2013–2014

January 2016

Vicki Crook and Louisa Musing

Report prepared for the European Commission

Contract 07.0307/2013/662839/SER/ENV.E.2

2

Report prepared by TRAFFIC for the European Commission

under Contract 07.0307/2013/662839/SER/ENV.E.2

All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and

may be reproduced with permission. Any reproduction in full

or in part of this publication must credit the European

Commission as the copyright owner.

The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not

necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, the

TRAFFIC network, WWF or IUCN.

The designation of geographical entities in this publication,

and the presentation of the material, do not imply the

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the

European Commission, TRAFFIC or its supporting

organizations concerning the legal status of any country,

territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark

ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance of

WWF and IUCN.

Suggested citation: Crook, V. and Musing, L. (2016).

Analysis of EU Member State CITES Biennial Reports 2013–2014.

Report prepared for the European Commission.

ISBN: 978 2 930490 29 8

EAN: 9782930490298

3

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5

METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 7

EU ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................ 9

B LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY MEASURES .................................................................................................... 9

C COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES ............................................................................................ 12 General compliance and enforcement (C1-C19) ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Implementation of the EU Enforcement Action Plan (C20-C30) ............................................................................................................. 16

D ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 21 Management and Scientific Authority Staffing and Research (D1-D2) ................................................................................................. 21 Communication, information management and exchange (D4) .............................................................................................................. 24 Permitting and registration procedures (D5.2-D5.14) ................................................................................................................................. 26 Additional permit and registration procedures (D5.15-D5.20) ................................................................................................................ 31 Capacity building (D6) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Collaboration/co-operative initiatives (D7) ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 Areas for future work (D8) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

DISCUSSION – NEW REPORTING FORMAT ................................................................38

QUESTIONS/TOPICS FROM PART 1 NOT INCLUDED IN THE NEW REPORT FORMAT .................................... 38

QUESTIONS/TOPICS FROM PART 2 OF PARTICULAR INTEREST/IMPORTANCE FOR MONITORING

IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................... 42

GENERAL COMMENTS ON BIENNIAL REPORT AND NEW IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FORMAT .................. 45

ANNEX 1: CITES BIENNIAL REPORT FORMAT ...........................................................47

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT TABLE ................................................................64

ANNEX 3: ADDITIONAL SUMMARY TABLES ..............................................................69

ANNEX 4: STRICTER DOMESTIC MEASURES ..............................................................73

ANNEX 5: PENALTIES .......................................................................................................79

ANNEX 6: PERMITS ISSUED AND DENIED ...................................................................85

ANNEX 7: EU MA AND SA STAFFING, PERMIT ISSUANCE AND SA REFERRALS,

2013-2014 ..............................................................................................................................86

ANNEX 8: ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................87

ANNEX 9: EU ENFORCEMENT ACTION PLAN ...........................................................88

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report has been realised within the framework of the service contract 070307/2010/574210/SER/E2 with the European Commission. The authors would like to thank

representatives of the CITES Management Authorities in the European Union for providing

information, and TRAFFIC colleagues Kata Kecse-Nagy, Stephanie Pendry and Richard Thomas for

their reviews.

5

INTRODUCTION

The European Union (EU) constitutes one of the largest and most diverse markets for wildlife and wildlife products in the world. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which entered into force in 1975, aims to ensure that international

trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

CITES is implemented in the EU through two main Regulations: Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97

(as amended1) on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (the

Basic Regulation) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (as amended2) laying down detailed

rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (the Implementing

Regulation). This set of Regulations is also known as the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations (hereafter

referred to as the Regulations) and is directly applicable in all EU Member States. The necessary

enforcement provisions must be transferred into national legislation and supplemented with national

laws, as these matters remain under the sovereignty of each Member State.

According to Article 15(4)(c) of the Council Regulation and Article 69(5) of the Commission Regulation,

EU Member States should report biennially to the Commission “all the information relating to the

preceding two years required for drawing up the reports referred to in Article VIII.7 (b) of the Convention

and equivalent information on the provisions of this Regulation that fall outside the scope of the Convention”.

The Biennial Report format for EU Member States includes Part 1, which is for all CITES Parties and

was agreed at the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in October 2004, and Part

2, covering supplementary questions specified by the Commission related to information on the

provisions of the Regulations that fall outside the scope of CITES (see Biennial Report format in

Annex 1). Additionally, Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC, adopted on 13th June 2007,

identifies a set of actions for the enforcement of Council Regulation No 338/97 and specifies the

measures that should be taken for the enforcement of the Regulations. These measures have been

included as supplementary questions in Part 2 of the Biennial Report, as agreed at the CITES

Management Committee meeting held on 14th November 2008 (COM 45).

The analysis of Biennial Reports aims to assess EU Member States’ compliance with, and

performance and effectiveness in, implementing CITES, and to provide an overview of how the EU as a whole implements the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. The method of Biennial Report analysis

was amended for the reporting period 2009-2010, in an attempt to provide a better overview at the

EU level, in addition to useful examples, facts and figures of the EU’s implementation of CITES, which

will enable the European Commission and EU Member States to identify successes, progress and

possibilities for improvement and learn from good practice. All 28 EU Member State3 Biennial

Reports for 2013-2014 were analysed using this new method.

It is important to note that plans are underway to replace the current CITES Biennial Report format

with a new “Implementation Report” structure around the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2020

1 The Regulation was most recently amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1320/2014 of 1 December 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. 2 The latest amendments are: a) Commission Regulation (EU) No 791/2012 of 23 August 2012 amending, as regards certain provisions relating to the trade

in species of wild fauna and flora, Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97; b) Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/870 of 5 June 2015 amending, as regards the trade in species of wild fauna and flora, Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97; c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/57 of 15 January 2015 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 as regards the rules for the design of permits, certificates and other documents provided

for in Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97. It is noted that Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/870 replaces Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/56 of 15 January 2015, which had to be repealed for procedural reasons. The content of

Regulation (EU) 2015/870 is identical to Regulation (EU) 2015/56. Acts adopted under Regulation (EU) 2015/56 remain valid. 3 Croatia became an EU Member State in July 2013 – this is the first time Croatia’s CITES Biennial Report has been included in the EU Analysis.

6

(Resolution Conf. 16.3) to allow direct input of the information collated into the Strategic Vision

indicators. The most recent version of the new proposed format has been submitted for approval

by the Standing Committee in January 2016 and can be found here:

https://cites.org/com/sc/66/index.php If this new reporting format is approved, it is likely that the

next reporting period (from 2015 onwards) will be covered by this, and a different approach/method

of analysis of the information provided will need to be developed. Furthermore, questions in this

new format are very different from those in the current Part 1 of the Biennial Reports. The EU

would therefore need to review the relevance of the questions currently included in Part 2 and

consider whether a new Part 2 with additional questions specifically applicable to the EU, or covering

topics that have now been removed from Part1 but are deemed important for monitoring

implementation of CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, may be warranted. The discussion

section of the 2013-2014 analysis therefore focuses on this issue, and provides suggestions of

questions and topics for consideration/possible inclusion in a new Part 2 by EU Member States.

7

METHODS

The 2013-2014 Biennial Report analysis follows the same method and format used for the 2011-2012 reporting period (Crook, 20144), and is composed of three main sections:

The “EU analysis of implementation” (hereafter referred to as the EU analysis) which

provides an overview of answers to most Biennial Report questions at the EU-level, in

addition to providing some specific examples from individual Member States;

The “Discussion” which focuses on particularly useful information collated using the current

Biennial Report which facilitates monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of the

EU Wildlife Trade Regulations and the identification of achievements, developments, trends, gaps or problems and possible solutions and that will likely not be collected using the new

Implementation report format proposed for 2015 onwards

The “Annexes” which include summary tables of specific answers provided by individual

Member States and additional supporting information.

The EU analysis covers legislative, compliance and enforcement, and administrative measures in turn.

An overall indication of the level of implementation (number of Member States answering a question

positively) is provided for each relevant question, supplemented with any further details and

examples of good practice/useful information provided by Member States. Where possible, the

wording used in the analysis is similar to that provided by Member States in their reports.

Answers provided in the 2013-2014 Biennial Reports were assumed to refer to actions taken by the

Member State during the 2013-2014 reporting period only (unless otherwise stated or inferred). In

addition to analysing responses from this reporting period, answers were compared with those

provided in 2011-2012. Changes in the total numbers of positive responses for each of the main

topics/question groupings were analysed and, where relevant, comparisons between reporting

periods are included in the EU analysis. Where no reference to the 2011-2012 period is made, it

can be inferred that there was no or minimal overall change reported by Member States. Furthermore, in cases where no or little new information was provided in the form of examples or

details, tables summarising this information and presented in the 2011-2012 analysis were not

duplicated in the current analysis. Specific details of changes reported by individual Member States

can be found in the first two summary tables found in Annexes 2 and 3 - where Member States

provided a different answer in 2013-2014 to that in 2011-2012, the cell is highlighted in grey.

Not all Biennial Report questions are addressed in this analysis. The majority are included in the

summary tables and discussed further in the EU analysis. However, some are only included in the

EU analysis, due to difficulties in interpreting and/or providing a yes or no answer for these

questions, combined with the fact that the specific information provided by Member States was

thought to be considerably more useful if presented in its full format. Some questions were not

included in the summary tables or EU analysis, either because they did not provide additional

information of use for the analysis or because they deal with issues such as the provision of full

legislative text, contact details and/or permit format, and do not lend themselves to “analysis” (B1b,

B3, B4, C2b, C16b, D1.1-D1.4, D2.1, D2.2, D3.1, D3.2, D3.4 and D5.1).

Interpreting some of the answers provided by Member States involves some subjectivity. Table 1

provides details on how answers provided by Member States were defined in order to be able to

present consistently applicable “yes”, “no” and “no information” answers in the first summary

assessment table (Annex 2), including for a number of questions made up of several options. The

additional summary tables (Annex 3) provides more detailed information for certain questions,

4 Crook, V. (2014). Analysis of EU Member State CITES Biennial Reports 2011-2012. Report prepared for the European Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2011-2012.pdf

8

including those with various options (marked with “1” or “0.5” when that option was selected by

Member States, left blank if not selected) or answers involving numbers or percentages (actual or

average/range of numbers calculated from information provided by Member States). When Member

States provided additional details that contradicted the yes/no answer provided or option selected,

the summary tables were amended accordingly. The same interpretations were used in the 2011-

2012 analysis, facilitating comparison between these two last reporting periods.

Throughout the analysis, “non-CITES-listed species” refers to species that are listed in the

Regulation Annexes, but not in the CITES Appendices. These include some species in Annexes A

and B and all those in Annex D. A list of all country codes and other abbreviations used throughout

the analysis are provided in Annex 8. Where values are provided in non-Euro currencies, a

conversion to Euros (EUR), using the average exchange rate for 2013–2014 for that currency as per

www.oanda.com is provided.

In addition to analysing the answers provided in the EU Member State 2013-2014 Biennial Reports,

the new proposed CITES Implementation Report format5 (also see introduction) was reviewed and

compared to the current Biennial Report Parts 1 and 2 with the intention of identifying any questions

or topics that have been important for monitoring implementation of the EU Wildlife Trade

Regulations in the past, but may not be included in the new format. These form the basis of the

Discussion.

Table 1 Methods used for interpretation of Biennial Report answers for inclusion in the

summary tables

Interpretation of answers Questions this was applied to

As per question (Y for “Yes”, N for “No”, P for “Partly”, U for

“Underway” or “Under consideration”, O for “No

information”), if no box ticked same as “no information”

B1, B7, C2, C4, C6, C8, C12, C14,

C20-C30, D1.8, D1.8b, D1.11,

D2.3, D2.8, D2.8b, D2.10, D3.1,

D3.3, D3.6, D4.3, D4.3b, D4.9,

D5.4, D5.7, D5.9b, D5.14-5.20,

D7.1, D7.7, D7.9, D7.13, D8.2,

D8.2b, D8.4, D8.4b, D8.6

Marked Y when a Member State provided information on NEW

legislation, enacted/coming into force during the 2013-2014

reporting period under either of these questions.

B2/B2b

Marked Y if one or more “Yes” boxes ticked, N if all “No” boxes

ticked, O if no boxes ticked or all “No information” boxes ticked

B5/5b, B8/8b (either), C1, D5.2

Marked Y if information provided (Adequate, Partially or

Inadequate), N if all “No information” boxes ticked or none

ticked.

B6

Marked Y if any information provided in the box or as Annex, N

if no information provided

B9b

As per question for Yes and No, O if either “Not applicable” or

“No information” boxes ticked

C11, C16, D4.5

Marked Y if one or more boxes ticked, N if no boxes ticked (or

“Not at all” box ticked)

D4.1, D4.1b, D4.8, D4.10, D5.9,

D6.1, D6.2, D6.3, D7.4, D7.5,

D7.6

Marked Y if all authorities have continuous/unrestricted access

or access to all options

D4.2, D4.6

Marked Y if “Entirely”, P if “Partly”, N if “Not at all” and O if

“Not relevant” or no boxes ticked

D5.11

5 https://cites.org/com/sc/66/index.php

9

EU ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION

B Legislative and regulatory measures

B1-B2/B2b CITES and/or Regulation-related legislation

All Member States reported having either fully or partly provided information on their CITES-

relevant legislation under the CITES National Legislation Project. All but one Member State (RO)

also reported having planned, drafted or enacted new CITES or Regulation-relevant legislation

during this period. A total of seven Member States provided details of new legislation that was in

the process of being enacted or had been published during 2013-2014.

B5/B5b Stricter domestic measures

Twenty six Member States reported having stricter domestic measures in place for CITES-listed

species. Details of these are provided in Annex 4. It must be noted, that some Member States report

having stricter measures in place, however, these refer to stricter EU requirements under the

Regulations, and not additional domestic measures. Ten Member States also reported having

additional stricter measures in place for non-CITES listed species. Stricter domestic measures tend

to cover native and nationally protected species, including those found in overseas territories (FR,

UK). However, some Member States have other measures in place such as:

the keeping of certain wild animals including primates, marine mammals, carnivores, felines, hawks, and crocodilians is prohibited, except in zoos, rescue centres or under special

circumstances (BG, EE, IT, LT, LV, NL, SI, SK)

trade in specimens with unknown origin or unregistered specimens of vertebrates offered

as food or small leather products is prohibited (BG)

stricter marking, registration, authorisation and documentation requirements, such as traders/keepers keeping records of acquisition and sales or to retain documentation

proving legal acquisition/introduction into the EU (BE, DE, FR, HU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SI)

the keeping of certain dangerous (particularly venomous) animals requires permission (DE,

FR, IT, PT)

possession, breeding and national marketing of exotic invasive species is restricted (DE, ES, PT)

commercial use of raw rhino horn is banned (UK) and Commission guidelines on export

and re-export of rhino horn is strictly followed (BE)

import of any whale products or taking of whales including by national vessels (FI) and transport, offer for sale or exchange of any wild live or dead cetacean (UK) is prohibited

special provisions and restrictions on the breeding, keeping and training of birds of prey

(DE, IE, NL, SI)

the capture and killing of wild specimens of sturgeon species for commercial purposes is

banned until the end of 2015 (RO)

Two Member States (AT, UK) noted that new stricter domestic measures are currently imposed for the export/re-export of ivory, however the former (AT) did not provide any further

information on key measures or related legislation therefore it is not included in Annex 4.

B6-B8/B8b Review of effectiveness of CITES legislation (results)/review of legislation

Seventeen Member States provided information on the results of any review or assessment of the

effectiveness of CITES legislation (compared to 20 providing information in 2011-2012). Nearly all

these Member States marked items as “adequate” with the exception of the following as “partially

inadequate”:

10

Powers of CITES authorities (SK)

Clarity of legal obligations (IT, SK)

Control over CITES trade (RO, SE)

Consistency with existing policy on wildlife management and use (IT)

Coverage of law for all types of offences (FR, UK)

Coverage of law for all types of penalties (CY, FR, RO)

Implementing regulations (SK)

One Member State mentioned that it will be revising its current legislation as a result of such a

review, to ensure more offences are covered (UK). Seven Member States provided further details

in relation to review of the effectiveness of CITES legislation on an EU or national level. Some described the EU’s review of Regulation 865/2006 and their role in discussions/revisions on issues

such as trophy hunting (DE), proof of legal origin of CITES Appendix II/Annex B listed species and

the re-export of pre-Convention ivory from the EU (BE).

In 2011-2012, a total of six Member States reported having planned a legislation review for the next

reporting period, three of which provided details of this in their 2013-2014 reports (BE, DE, UK).

It is unclear whether reviews in the remaining three Member States were conducted during this

period or not. Six Member States reported planning a legislation review for the next reporting

period.

In total, eight Member States reported having reviewed legislation dealing with specific subjects in

relation to the implementation of CITES and EU Regulations in 2013-2014. The most common

subject for review was the introduction of species that would threaten indigenous fauna/flora (BE,

HR, PL, SK), followed by access to or ownership of natural resources (BG, FR), harvesting (LV, RO),

handling and housing of live specimens (FR, LV) and marking of specimens (BE, HR).

B9b Penalties for Regulation-related violations

Twenty-four Member States provided details of maximum penalties that may be imposed for

Regulation-related offences in their 2013-2014 reports. This information, combined with further

details collected from Member States in previous years, is summarised in Annex 5.

Five Member States reported having made changes to the fines, penalties and conditions of

punishment imposed for Regulation-related violations since the last reporting period 2011-2012,

including an increase (EL, LV, NL) and decrease (LV, SI) in minimum and maximum fines for private

and legal persons, an increase in the length of imprisonment (ES), ban from keeping, hunting and/or

trading in wildlife (ES, NL), and the publishing of court rulings in the media (NL).

Member States reported variable minimum and maximum fines depending on whether offences were

committed by private or legal persons; whether classified as administrative offences or crimes;

whether committed with intent or through negligence, and/or depending on the Code or Act under

which the offence is punishable. Fourteen Member States reported maximum prison sentences of

five years or more (BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, NL, PL, SI, SK, UK). A number of fines are reportedly

based on the income of the accused (often referred to as “day fines”), however full details on the

rates and maximum number of units imposed is not always provided. Member States also reported:

variable or unlimited fines in certain cases (ES, UK)

higher fines and/or prison sentences for organised crime (FR, SI) and for cases involving live

animals (EL)

additional penalties in the form of seizures of equipment or closure of premises (ES, NL)

increased length of imprisonment if the offender was involved in multiple cases (FI)

fines dependant on the EU Annex listing, conservation status or market value (ES, HU)

11

maximum fines for each individual specimen involved (e.g. per 250 g caviar, piece of ivory) (HU)

requiring the offender to cover all associated costs such as confiscation, transport and

storage of specimens (HU, LU, NL)

using a threshold market value of EUR 50 000 to distinguish between administrative offences and crimes (ES).

The EU and all Member States are Parties to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized

Crime (UNTOC), which defines “serious crime” as “conduct constituting an offence punishable by

a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or more”6. At various recent high-level fora,

Member States have committed to addressing the problem of the illegal wildlife trade “by adopting

or amending legislation, as necessary, to criminalize poaching and wildlife trafficking, and related

crimes including by ensuring such criminal offences are ‘serious crimes’ within the UN Convention

against Transnational Organized Crime”7 and by making “illicit trafficking in protected species of wild

fauna and flora involving organized criminal groups a serious crime, in accordance with their national

legislation and article 2 (b) of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized

Crime”8.

Based on the information provided my Member States in their 2013-2014 Biennial Reports, eleven

Member States still do not appear to have national legislation that allows for at least four years

imprisonment (AT, CY, DK, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, PT, RO). One Member State currently has a

four year maximum prison sentence, however the maximum imposable prison sentence per case is

only two years and can reach four years only if several cases are considered/prosecuted together.

This Member State, however reported that an amendment of their Penal Code is planned to address

this issue (FI).

6 https://www.unodc.org/documents/middleeastandnorthafrica/organised-crime/UNITED_NATIONS_CONVENTION_AGAINST_TRANSNATIONAL_ORGANIZED_CRIME_AND_THE_PROTOCOLS_THERETO.pdf 7 London Declaration on Illegal Wildlife Trade, 2014 8 UNGA Resolution Tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife, 2015

12

C Compliance and enforcement measures

General compliance and enforcement (C1-C19)

C1 Compliance and monitoring operations undertaken

All 28 Member States carried out certain compliance monitoring operations in 2013-2014; 27

reported carrying out border controls (BG reported “no information” for this), 26 conducted

inspections of traders, producers and/or markets, and 15 reviewed reports and other information

provided by traders and/or producers. Other activities included on-site inspections (AT), monitoring

Internet trade (DE, FR, PL, SI), inspections of breeding facilities (EL, ES), controls on company

warehouses (FI) and control on the internal movement of CITES listed specimens (HU). One

Member State noted that inspections were generally carried out by veterinary inspectors for the

purpose of monitoring and approving applications related to animal welfare issues (BE).

C2-C9/C9b Seizures and administrative measures/criminal prosecutions/court actions

Twenty-one Member States made “significant” seizures, confiscations or forfeitures in 2013-2014

(compared to 23 in 2011-2012). CITES-related violations were penalised through administrative

measures such as fines, bans and suspensions in 23 Member States, criminal prosecutions in 19 and

other court actions in 15. A number of Member States provided examples of fines, prosecutions

and court actions from this reporting period (a selection of some significant penalties are provided

in Table 2). Further details of significant seizures are not provided here as information on EU seizures

are analysed on a regular basis and presented to the EU Enforcement Group at its six monthly

meetings.

C10 Methods used to dispose of confiscated specimens

Most Member States used a combination of methods for disposing of confiscated specimens with

transfer to public zoos or botanical gardens being the most common method (23). The number of

Member States using designated rescue centres to dispose of/house confiscated specimens increased

since the last reporting period (18 compared to 15), as did the number transferred to approved

private facilities (9). Specimens were more rarely returned to the country of export (6) or

euthanised (4). See question C26 for more information on housing of seized specimens.

Methods of disposal of dead specimens, parts and/or derivatives included:

given to authorities, museums, universities, NGOs or other scientific collections for public

awareness and education purposes

kept by the Management Authority (MA), Scientific Authority (SA) or Customs

used as samples for Customs and Police training

destruction e.g. specimens having been kept in storage for a while, less valuable specimens, specimens not of interest for education/training, plants, cosmetics or other types of

specimens due to health hazards or high profile commodities such as ivory (destroyed

publically).

C11 Detailed information on significant cases of illegal trade, convicted traders and/or

persistent offenders provided to the CITES Secretariat

Twelve Member States reported having provided detailed information to the Secretariat through an

ECOMESSAGE or other means. One Member State noted that ECOMESSAGE is only used by the

Police to inform INTERPOL (DE) and another highlighted that personal data such as that contained

in ECOMESSAGE is protected by national legislation and can therefore not be shared more widely

(SK). Some Member States also declared that information is shared via EU-TWIX and through direct

communication with the CITES Secretariat and the European Commission (CZ, EE, HR).

13

Table 2 Examples of fines, prosecutions and court actions for CITES-related offences

reported by EU Member States for the 2013-2014 period

Case details Sanctions

BE Four individuals found guilty of forging breeding

documentation and CITES certificates for over 20 species of bird, including CITES Appendix I listed species.

Fines up to EUR 90 000 for the individuals

and EUR 835 800 of trade profits (including real estate) confiscated. Up to 4 years’

prison sentence (1 year suspended). Currently subject to appeal.

CZ Individual charged (criminal offence) for illegally importing five specimens of Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus).

9 month prison sentence (2 year probation).

Individual charged (criminal offence) for illegally exporting

18 African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) ivory tusks to Vietnam.

1 year prison sentence (3 years’ probation)

and confiscation of specimens.

DE Import of one live Capuchin Monkey (Cebus capucinus) Fine of EUR 2 000.

Import of 62 kg of stony coral jewellery (Scleractinia spp.). Fine of EUR 16 500.

DK Illegal trade of parrots between 2009 and 2011. Fine EUR ~87 000, confiscation of 11 eggs,

31 parrots and trade profit EUR ~28 500.

EE Internal seizure of 29 pieces of Mahogany (Swietenia humilis) from a warehouse.

Fine of EUR 1500

EL Import of 107 live specimens of Common Tortoise (Testudo graeca) from Bulgaria to Greece.

Fine of EUR 80 for court expenses and a 6 month prison sentence.

Illegal collection and possession of 63 wild live specimens of

Hermann’s Tortoise (Testudo hermanni) and Marginated Tortoise (Testudo marginata), kept in poor conditions.

Administrative fine of EUR 5 000 – no

court decision yet.

ES Over 500 administrative fines imposed, pending or under appeal (including confiscations) in 2013-2014. Maximum

fines in 2013/2014 for seizures of 4 crocodile specimens and of 4 specimens of Rupicola peruviana

Maximum for 2013 – EUR 70 800 Maximum for 2014 – EUR 56 675

Over 130 animal parts (birds and mammals, including

porcupines and primates) found in personal luggage coming from South America.

4 month prison sentence, fine of EUR 225

000 and confiscation

FI Illegal collection and trade of approx. 9 500 bird eggs, including CITES listed species.

Compensation of EUR 250 000 for living value of specimens and one year prison

sentence (conditional imprisonment).

HR Seizure of 18 live wild specimens of Hermann’s Tortoise (Testudo hermanni) with no permits in transit through

Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Italy.

Fine of EUR 500 and confiscation of specimens.

MT Individual found in possession of one Canadian Lynx (Lynx

canadensis) and Bobcat (Lynx rufus) declared to have been imported from the US but with no CITES documentation.

Fine of EUR 650 and confiscation of

specimen.

NL Over 50 seizures of live plants, corals and other animals,

due to various reasons. All specimens were donated to botanical gardens or zoos.

Specimens confiscated and all associated

costs were passed onto offender.

RO Two specimens of Spur-thighed Tortoise (Testudo graeca) from Morocco found in the luggage of a tourist.

Administrative fine of EUR 1 700 and confiscation of specimens.

SI 360 kg (7784 specimens) of different bird species, including European Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur), seized from

vehicle, no documentation, criminal prosecution

EUR 7000 fine and destruction of all specimens

SK Offers for sale on the internet of guitars containing Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia nigra)

Fine of EUR 1 500.

UK Individual found guilty of 9 offences, including prohibited sale of Black Kites (Milvus migrans), theft of eagle owls (Bubo

spp), falsifying statements to gain permits, and fraudulently obtaining one Verraux’s Eagle Owl (Bubo lacteus) and Ural

Owl (Strix uralensis) from zoos.

40 week prison sentence (suspended for 18 months), 12 weeks curfew (extended to a

maximum of 3 months if the individual defaults on sanctions). Fines and costs of

EUR 22 100.

Individual attempted to smuggle 750 kg of rare and endangered corals from Vietnam.

6 month prison sentence.

14

C12-C15 Co-operative enforcement activities with other countries/ local communities

Twenty-three Member States have been involved in co-operative enforcement activities with other

countries, such as the exchange of intelligence, provision of technical support or investigative

assistance, or being part of a joint operation.

A number of Member States emphasised preparing for and actively participating in the EU

Enforcement Group and the Interpol Wildlife Crime Working Group, and co-operating with the

World Customs Organization (WCO) and Europol. In addition to these regular international

exchanges of information and dissemination of interesting seizures on EU-TWIX, Member States

participated in several bilateral and/or multi-lateral exchanges, workshops and joint operations,

including:

joint operations, including “controlled deliveries”, mainly for ivory (AT, BE, FR, UK)

exchange of intelligence, and/or participation in Operation OAKLEAF, on rhino horn with

national police authorities, Interpol and Europol (ES, IE, IT, SK)

collaboration with New Zealand and the United States on the illegal export of live reptiles,

including Naultinus spp., Python spp., Varanus spp. and chameleons (BE)

collaboration with other EU Member States on the acquisition of photo identification for

tortoise specimens (BE)

exchange of intelligence on trade of protected reptiles such as lizards, birds and timber products, particularly musical instruments (DE)

information exchange with Swedish and Norwegian authorities and with UK Wildlife Crime

Unit to implement a surveillance operation in Finnish Lapland on illegal bird egg trading (FI)

cooperation with IBAMA in Brazil on Psittacidae egg trade (PT)

exchange of information on falsification of rings and DNA samples for birds of prey (ES)

cooperation and information exchange with EU and non-EU Member States including Brazil

through NCB’s of Interpol to combat illegal logging and timber trade (IT)

information exchange between Sweden, Norway, Mexico and New Zealand police regarding seizures of reptiles, stuffed tiger and Cactaceae spp. (SE)

Two Member States reported offering incentives to local communities to assist in enforcement of

CITES legislation; one in the form of work via the Lusaka agreement task force (IT) and the other

via a financial incentive if a member of the public reports a suspected crime via the Crimestoppers

scheme which helps lead to a conviction (UK).

C16/17, D3.3, D3.6 CITES-related enforcement—review, additional measures, specialised units

and focal points

There was an increase in the number of Member States that conducted a review or an assessment

of CITES-related enforcement during 2013-2014 (11 compared to 9 in 2011-2012). The majority of Member States carried out these assessments by committee or specialised enforcement units

(established in 19 Member States) and have focused on enhancing collaborative action, control

measures, sharing of information and determining and/or improving enforcement priorities. In

addition, 24 Member States noted having designated environmental/CITES focal points within each

relevant enforcement authority.

One Member State reported working on the implementation of a specific CITES inspection service

including the hiring of two full time staff members to work on CITES control measures, information

exchange and collaborative action (BE). Two Member States established new working groups; one

to strengthen the enforcement of CITES through online information sharing after the “Standing

Committee on Species and Biotope Conservation” met at its 64th meeting in December 2013 (DE),

and the other to evaluate in-country CITES enforcement and cooperation between authorities (FI).

One Member State adopted a national action plan in 2014 targeting illegal trade in endangered

15

species (SK), and another commissioned an expert report on a proposed 2014-2020 national action

plan on implementation and enforcement of CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations (PL).

Finally, another Member State reported that during 2015 there will be an ongoing “government

commission” to enhance action against CITES offences (SE). Aside from these reported changes,

there were no other amendments to mechanisms for setting enforcement priorities or the existence

of specialised units at the national level. Therefore, all information on these processes/committees

is not repeated here, but can be found in Table 3 of the 2011-2012 Biennial Report (Crook, 20149).

C18 Marking of captive-bred specimens

Twenty-six Member States reported marking specimens to establish whether they were born and

bred in captivity (in accordance with Article 66 of EC Regulation 865/2006). However, as one

Member State specifically noted marking alone does not necessarily establish that the specimen was

born and bred in captivity, e.g. native birds can be taken from their nests at a very young age (or as eggs) and marked (SK).

Some Member States have reported more stringent marking requirements than others, to varying

degrees, such as compulsory marking of all Annex A live specimens (IT), almost all Annex A and B

birds, mammals and reptiles (plus registration) (LV), all captive born and captive bred specimens (IE),

all Annex A and some Annex B specimens (HU), or all Annex A and B specimens (BG). In 2013-

2014, two Member States (AT, BE) also introduced new requirements regarding the permanent

marking of unprocessed tusks of African Elephant and rhinoceros horn. Specific examples of species

being marked include birds of prey and specimens of species Ovis ammon musimon (EL).

Five Member States noted the use of alternative identification techniques (FI), particularly photo

identification (AT, BE, DE, HU) depending on species and/or age of specimen (for example for young

mammals and Testudo kleinmanni, which are too small even as adults for normal micro-chips to be

used). A scientific study conducted by one Member State determined that the use of a very small

microchip on young T. hermanni, T graeca and T marginata tortoises with plastrons >4.5 cm does not

result in adverse behavioural or physical effects. Therefore, this method of marking is now used for

individuals over this size (BE).

C19 Monitoring of intended accommodation for live specimens

Twenty-three Member States confirmed that they monitored intended accommodation for live

specimens at the place of destination to ensure it was adequately equipped to conserve and care for

them (according to Article 4(1c) of EC Regulation 338/97). Several Member States noted that their

Scientific Authorities evaluate the conditions of intended accommodation whenever an import

application for Annex A specimens is submitted (AT, DE, LV, PL). In other Member States, either

inspectorates, veterinary or welfare authorities regularly check housing conditions in facilities known

to keep live animals for commercial or public purposes (BE, FI, FR, HU).

Other forms of monitoring include communication with the country of destination’s Management

Authorities (EL), verification of the facilities of new breeders (IT) and irregular inspections if

information comes to light suggesting operations are not being run properly (FI). One Member State

noted that the Scientific Authorities evaluate the accommodation and species knowledge of

breeders, and that those wishing to breed invasive species must submit a risk assessment (SI).

Another Member State requires that an “accommodation care questionnaire” be completed by any

new owner and that this be assessed by a scientific advisor with expertise in animal welfare

legislation. In addition, for any transfers of specimens originally acquired with source codes W, F, U

or I, advice from a scientific advisor is required (BE).

9 Crook, V. (2014). Analysis of EU Member State CITES Biennial Reports 2011-2012. Report prepared for the European Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2011-2012.pdf

16

Implementation of the EU Enforcement Action Plan (C20-C30)

Questions C20 to C30 specifically address Member State progress in implementing the EU

Enforcement Action Plan (EU EAP) – Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551. However, there

are a number of other Biennial Report questions (or parts of them) linked to the EU EAP, including

B8, B9b, C1, C2, C9b, C10, C11, C12/13, C19, D3.6, D4.2, D4.6/4.7, D4.10, D6.1, D6.2, D6.3, D7.1-

7.5, D7.9/7.10 and D8.1, details of which are provided under their respective sections. A table

summarising all Biennial Report questions related to implementation of the EU EAP and its specific

recommendations is provided in Annex 9.

When compared to 2011-2012, there were some reported changes to Member State

implementation of the EU EAP recommendations, including the implementation of over half the EU

EAP recommendations (C23-26, C28, C30) by the new Member State (HR). The total number of positive responses remained the same for three questions (C21-22 and C26) and increased for six

questions (C23-25, C27, C29-30). Recommendations IId (training and awareness activities carried

out for enforcement agencies, prosecution services and judiciary), IIg (regular checks on traders and

holders undertaken in-country) and IIh (risk and intelligence assessment used to ensure thorough

checks at borders and in-country) increased by two positive responses meaning that between 22

and 23 Member States reported implementing these recommendations in 2013-2014. Of note is the

reported improved implementation of recommendations IIIe (cooperation with enforcement

agencies in other Member States on investigations of offences) (26 compared to 23 positive

responses) and IIIL (advice and support provided to non-EU authorities in source, transit, and

consumer countries on correct application of procedure) (15 compared to 12 positive responses).

On the other hand, there was a reduction in the total number of positive responses for two

questions (C20 and C28). A total of seven Member States reported having a national action plan for

coordination of enforcement adopted (recommendation IIa), and only five providing assistance to

other Member States with temporary/long term housing of seized live specimens) (recommendation

IIj), this consequently appears to be the least implemented EU EAP recommendation.

C20 National action plans for coordination of enforcement (II a)

Since the last reporting period there was a decrease in the number of Member States having adopted

a national action plan for co-ordination of enforcement (7 compared to 8) and in most cases further

details on the objectives, timeframes, and whether these plans are harmonised and reviewed on a

regular basis, were not provided.

Two Member States reported having long term national action plans; one reported having a five year

“National Wildlife Trade Enforcement Plan” for 2010-2015 (IE) and the other a five year national

action plan for 2014-2019 (SK). Another Member State reported that there had been no change in

the status of its plan since the last reporting period (LV). One Member State indicated that a formal

action plan was in the process of being adopted (BE) and another indicated that a “formal” national

CITES action plan for enforcement had not actually been formulated, but that focal areas,

commitments and priorities for enforcement are set on a regular basis (UK).

Some of the Member States reporting not having such an action plan in place provided further details

concerning progress or as to why this was the case:

national legislation sets out rules for relevant duties and cooperation between national agencies to ensure adequate trade controls and enforcement (BG)

development of a plan was underway or being commissioned (FR, PL)

a national enforcement action plan is not perceived to be necessary due to the administrative and enforcement authorities being in constant communication with each

other (ES)

17

One Member State noted that although their national legislation stipulates relevant duties and

cooperation between national agencies to ensure adequate trade controls and subsequent

enforcement, they are discussing whether to adopt a separate national action plan in the future

(CZ).

C21 Access to specialised equipment, expertise and resources (II b)

Twenty Member States reported that their enforcement authorities have access to specialised

equipment, relevant expertise, and other financial and personnel resources including:

microchip readers (BE, SE, SI)

training programmes for officials (FI, PT)

species experts and Customs/forensic laboratories (BE, DE, FR, SE, UK)

electronic systems with restriction indicators for import, export and transit of

species/specimens (FI)

specialised equipment including X-ray machines, gloves and cannulae (MT, PT, SE)

deep freezers and species identification manuals (SI)

equipment and expertise for transporting live seized animals (CZ, LV), and

live animal reception centre based in a principal national airport (UK).

Support, expertise and resources provided by other authorities, in particular Scientific Authorities,

were also highlighted in a number of cases (HU, LV, SI, UK). However, some Member States,

although answering this question positively, noted that more human resources and funds are needed

(CZ, ES, PL), in particular for more specific analyses such as DNA analysis (LV). National expertise

is also lacking for some of the newly CITES-listed species, such as exotic timbers and sharks (LV).

C22 Penalties take into account market/conservation value of species and costs incurred (II c)

Eighteen Member States confirmed that penalties imposed take into account inter alia the market

value of specimens and the conservation value of species involved in an offence, and the costs

incurred.

Three Member States noted that the conservation value of native/nationally protected species in

particular are considered (FI, HU, LT) and one Member State reported fines generally increasing

with commodity value (such as caviar or timber) and if the specimens involved fall under registration

requirements (HU). One Member State also detailed that any penalties imposed were calculated on

a point system based on the gravity of the CITES offence, taking into account the market value of

the specimens, repetition of offence, status of the offender and the number of specimens involved

(BE). Legislative provisions requiring the offender (i.e. the importer in case of unlawful importation

of protected specimens) and/or the carrier to meet the costs of confiscation, custody and storage

has been enacted in one Member State (DE), and another is currently looking into incorporating

seizure costs into penalties (ES).

One Member State noted that although its laws prescribe that penalties must take into account the

gravity of the offence and the importance and extent of consequences thereof, they are often very

low in practice and do not take into account the market and conservation value of the specimens

(CZ). Others noted that any penalties following conviction are ultimately at the discretion of the

judge or magistrate subject to the maximum penalties allowed for under legislation (IE, MT), market-

value is only taken into account in some cases (SE) and conservation value, in practice, is often

unknown (DE). Finally, one Member State raised the issue of minimum penalties being high in the

current economic climate and that confiscation alone can result in considerable financial loss (LV).

18

C23 Training/awareness of enforcement authorities, prosecution services and judiciary (II d)

Since the last reporting period, there has been increase in the number of Member States carrying

out training and/or awareness raising activities for enforcement agencies, prosecution services

and/or the judiciary (22 compared to 20).

Three Member States specified that training was focused on enforcement agencies only (Customs,

Police and inspectorates) (HR, SE, SI), whereas other countries also participated in raising

awareness/training of prosecutors and judges (BE, BG, PL). Regular yearly training courses aimed at

border and police forces included a Wildlife Crime Foundation Course, which is a one week long

CITES enforcement course and a court training day (also involving the Crown Prosecution Service)

(UK).

One Member State noted that information and guidance, particularly on CITES legislation and

relevant sanctions, was regularly exchanged between CITES authorities and Customs officers, and

that specific interest was given to raising internal awareness of illegal timber trade (EL). Another

Member State reported that specific training regarding public health investigations was also

conducted (FR). Specialist training programmes for certain issues, including specimen identification,

dealing with seized specimens and temporary housing, and safety procedures was also organised by

one Member State (PL). Finally, another Member State reported holding regular seminars for federal

police, Customs and local management and enforcement authorities, dealing with recent

developments and trends, EU wildlife trade legislation and procedures following confiscations (DE).

Further details of training courses and awareness activities are provided under questions D4.10,

D6.3 and D7.9/7.10.

C24 Regular checks on traders and holders (II g)

Twenty-three Member States reported performing regular checks on traders and holders such as

pet shops, breeders, animal fairs, zoos, travelling exhibitions, botanical gardens and nurseries to

ensure in-country enforcement. One Member State reported that until 2014, CITES and animal

welfare controls were often combined but that two new CITES inspectors had been hired to

specifically carry out checks on traders and holders (BE). Internet sales were also monitored by one

Member State (PL).

Regularity of checks varied between sectors and Member States. For example, regular targeted

checks were carried out on traders and pet shops (DE, LU, UK), on breeders and nurseries (ES,),

randomly and/or upon registration applications (HU) or on breeders of Annex A listed species (MT).

On the other hand, pet shops and other commercial outlets were checked randomly or as a result

of an investigation/tip-off (ES), or all checks were irregular due to a lack of staff capacity (CZ). One

Member State reported carrying out a specific operation to recover unused semi-complete A10

certificates in an effort to prevent criminal use of them in the future and prosecute those found

involved in criminal offences associated with them (UK).

C25 Risk and intelligence assessments used systematically (II h)

Twenty-two Member States confirmed systematically using risk and intelligence assessments in

order to be more targeted in their checks at border-crossing points, as well as in-country. Risk and

intelligence analysis is most commonly used by Customs at borders, in particular for passenger,

cargo shipment and postal parcel controls.

One Member State has a special unit dealing only with risk assessments which is closely linked to,

and co-operating with, similar units in other EU Member States (DE). Enforcement officers in one

Member State are able to set profiles on a computerised entry clearance system, to automatically

19

select or identify shipments being imported from third countries that are worthy of examination or

require document validation (UK). Another Member State noted that although general risk and

intelligence analysis is used by Customs at all borders, assessments for CITES-listed species are

generally lacking (CZ). Another noted that it would be helpful to receive guidance on recommended

frequency of checks and methods for risk and intelligence assessment to ensure thorough evaluation

(SE). Two Member States report that as their Customs carry out systematic risk analyses at borders,

but in-country activities are not dealt with in the same way, unless they are clearly linked with

targeted imports/exports (FI) and instead experience and alerts provide the basis for targeting (ES).

C26 Facilities/mechanisms for temporary/long-term housing of live seized specimens (II i)

Twenty-five Member States have facilities available for the temporary care of seized or confiscated

live specimens and mechanisms in place for their long-term re-homing, where necessary. Several

Member States provided details on the number of facilities available, which ranged between one and 29 officially designated rescue centres for short and long-term housing for certain species (AT, BG,

EE, EL, HR, LV). One Member State reported the opening of a new rescue centre dedicated to the

temporary care of seized CITES-listed amphibians and small to medium sized reptiles in 2014 (PL).

However, a number of Member States noted some difficulties, particularly with the complexities of

locating temporary and long-term housing (EE, FR), facilities having limited resources (FI) and there

only being long-term housing available for certain species (LU). Furthermore, others noted that

although facilities for the temporary keeping of seized or confiscated live specimens are available,

these are often insufficient and can only cater to certain animals in small quantities (ES, LV, MT, SE).

One Member State reported that in 2013 its CITES MA signed a 5 year agreement with an NGO to

house seized animals; the facility can hold primates and from 2015 onwards, also felines (ES).

C27 Co-operation with enforcement agencies in other Member States (III e)

Twenty-six Member States confirmed their enforcement agencies co-operated with those in other

Member States on investigations of offences during the last reporting period (and increase from 23

in 2011-2012). Such cooperation often takes place on a case-by-case basis and through active

participation in meetings of the EU Enforcement Group (BE, DE). Other Member States mentioned

that this occurs through EU-TWIX (EL, MT, SK), while one other noted co-operation with non-EU

Member States including Serbia and Brazil (PT).

Further information provided by Member States on co-operation can also be found under C12-C15.

C28 Assistance with temporary care/long-term re-homing of live specimens (III j)

Five Member States reported providing other Member States with assistance with the temporary

care and long-term re-homing of seized or confiscated live specimens. Two Member States reported

that they had not been contacted regarding such a request (DK, LV), while one Member State said

that it will offer advice and assistance when contacted by other Member States (UK). Of those

Member States that answered “No” to this question, one stated that if asked it would try its best

to assist, depending on whether it has adequate facilities and expertise for the species concerned

(FI), yet one Member State detailed that their limited resources did not allow them to extend this

type of assistance (MT).

C29 Liaison with source, transit and consumer countries (III k)

Twenty-two Member States indicated that they liaise with CITES MAs and law enforcement agencies

in non-EU source, transit and consumer countries, as well as the CITES Secretariat, ICPO, Interpol

and WCO, to help detect, deter and prevent illegal trade in wildlife through the exchange of

information and intelligence.

20

Three Member States noted that this was generally conducted on a case by case basis (BE, DE, ES)

and one Member State raised the problem of officially sharing enforcement-related information and

that exchange of such information is very often prevented due to strict or different national rules

and laws on protection of personal and sensitive data (CZ). See C12-C15 for more information on

international co-operation and multi-national operations.

C30 Advice and support provided to source, transit and consumer countries (III l)

A total of fifteen Member States, an increase of three since 2011-2012, reported providing advice

and support in 2013-2014 to CITES MAs and law enforcement agencies in non-EU source, transit

and consumer countries to facilitate legal and sustainable trade through the correct application of

procedures.

According to one Member State this was provided on a case by case basis, but also through training seminars and programmes with officials from other CITES Parties (DE). Two Member States noted

that they provided as much advice as possible with regards to certificate/permit issues (LU, MT),

and another Member State noted that this is not usually relevant and advice and support is only

provided where a “shared” case required it, or it has been specifically requested (FI). See C12-C15

for more information on international co-operation and multi-national operations.

21

D Administrative measures

Management and Scientific Authority Staffing and Research (D1-D2)

D1.5-1.7 Management authority staff details

There are over 650 members of staff working in EU Member State Management Authorities (MAs),

with numbers in individual countries ranging from one person to more than 250 people spending

between 0.3 and 100% of their time on CITES issues. Further details are provided in Annex 3 and

7. Twenty Member States have fewer than ten individuals working in their MAs, however those that

have a higher number of staff (over 20) dedicating over 50% of their time to CITES are generally

found in Member States responsible for issuing the majority of permits (FR, IT, UK, DE) (see

question D5.3).

Annex 7 includes full time staff equivalents (FTE) for MA and SA staff in EU Member States calculated

from the staff numbers and percentages provided in the Biennial Reports (in some cases these are

estimates based on averages from across the EU where information was lacking - 50% for MA staff,

20% for SA staff, 1% for SA experts). Having staff time converted into this unit allows for simpler

comparison of staff time and activities across Member States – Annex 7 also provides information

on the total number of permits issued and the number times applications/questions were referred

the SA, see sections D5.3 and D5.8 for further discussion on these).

Fourteen Member States reported changes in their MA staffing and/or the average percentages of

staff time spent on CITES issues since the last reporting period with numbers slightly increasing in

2013-2014. In most cases these were reported as small changes to both staff numbers and average percentages of staff time spent on CITES issues making it difficult to determine whether any actual

change in staff time over this period has occurred. However, five Member States reported expanding

their MA team by one member of staff (AT, CY, FI, PL, SK), while two others expanded their team

by two staff members (DE, MT).

Two Member States reduced their staff members by one individual but reported an increase of up

to 50% in overall percentage of time working on CITES issues (BE, SI). Another Member State had

a reduction of four individuals but an increase of 6% of time spent working on CITES issues (FR).

One Member State reported a much lower number of support staff in 2013-2014 (150) compared

to 2011-2012 (350), however their percentage time spent on CITES issues was minimal and stayed

constant (0.3%, NL) and therefore this change may not have been as significant as the simple staff

numbers would suggest. Three other Member States reported having fewer members of staff, in

addition to a reduction in time for remaining staff to spend on CITES issues (LV, SE, UK). On the

other hand, one Member State doubled their percentage of time spent on CITES issues (CY), while

two others increased their time up to 90 and 100% (IE, RO respectively).

MA staff predominantly exhibit skills and expertise in biology (staff in 25 Member States),

administration (22) and law/policy (18). Only three Member States have MA staff members with

expertise in economics/trade (CY, ES, IT). Other skills/knowledge bases of MA staff include:

Developing countries, Africa (AT)

Veterinary science (DE, ES, SE)

Environmental protection/science (CZ, PL)

Forestry or Forest Engineering (DE, EL, PT)

Agriculture (ES, HU)

Human Ecology, Ecology and Systematics (SI)

Animal health and welfare (LU)

Communication Science (PT)

22

Ecology and Systematics (SI)

Police (DE)

D2.3-2.7/2.11 Scientific authority staff details

All but one Member State (LU) have a Scientific Authority (SA) that is independent from the MA.

Of note is that 17 Member States have their SAs based exclusively within a government or academic

institution (compared to 12 in 2011-2012). Additionally, four Member States have their SAs

exclusively in the form of a pool of individuals with expertise that can be consulted when needed

and three in the form of a permanent committee. The remaining four Member States have more

than one type of SA (AT, IT, LU, PT).

One Member State provided further information on the composition of its SA, made up of one

coordinator and a pool of experts from various universities, museums, institutes, botanical gardens

and zoos around the country, making up a Scientific Committee. Two new staff members specialising

in marine fish and plants were reportedly recruited for this committee in 2013-2014. These

individuals join a team with expertise in mammals, birds, reptiles and other vertebrates,

invertebrates and plants (BE).

There are over 145 staff or experts working in EU Member State SAs, with numbers in individual

countries ranging from one to 33 people spending between 1 and 100% of their time on CITES issues (further details are provided in Annex 3 and Annex 7 – FTE, see D1.5-1.7, D5.3 and 5.8 for

more information). Five Member States did not provide any information on the number of staff

working in their SAs, while nine did not give any details regarding the percentage of time spent on

CITES related matters.

Twelve Member States reported changes in their SA staffing and average percentages of time

allocated to CITES issues between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. In most cases the reported changes

with SA staffing were small with an increase or decrease of no more than two individuals, apart from

one Member State which reported a reduction of six to one staff member in their SA in 2013-2014

(EE). Four Member States reported having additional staff or experts available for providing scientific

advice (BE, CZ, FI, UK).

SA staff predominantly exhibit skills and expertise in botany and zoology (staff in 26 Member States)

as well as ecology (25). Fewer Member States have SA expertise in fisheries (11), forestry (10) or

welfare (10). Other skills/knowledge bases of SA staff include:

Law (AT, FR, PL)

Marine Biology (EL)

Geography and environment (DE, SK)

Veterinary Science (EL)

Captive breeding and production systems (NL, PL)

Population dynamics (BE)

Genetics (RO, UK)

Systematics and taxonomy (BE, UK)

Inspection and enforcement (SE)

Herpetology (EL), Icthyology (EL), Entomology (LT, MT), Ornithology (EL, LT)

Invasive alien species (PL)

Capacity-building (UK)

Overall average attendance at meetings of the Scientific Review Group (SRG) reportedly increased

in this reporting period with the EU SAs (or in some cases members of the MAs) participating in an

average of 6.57 of the eight meetings scheduled, compared to 5.76 during 2011-2012. However,

23

there was a decrease in the number of Member States attending all eight meeting in 2013-2014 (12

compared to 15 in 2011-2012). Five Member States reported being unable to attend any meetings

(BG, EL, LV, MT, SI), two provided no information, and nine Member States reported attending

fewer meetings than in the 2011-2012 period. Reasons provided for lack of, or reduced, attendance

all related to funding and time constraints, with many SAs working on CITES issues on a voluntary

basis (BG, LT, LV, MT, RO, SI). One Member State also noted that while attending the SRG meetings,

they encountered difficulties with the language/translations provided (FR).

D1.8-1.9/2.8-10, D7.11 Management and scientific authority research

MAs from ten Member States and SAs from eleven Member States have undertaken or supported

research into CITES or non-CITES species in 2013-2014. Examples of this research are provided in

Table 3. During this period, no Member States submitted project proposals for scientific research

to the CITES Secretariat (Res. Conf. 12.2), while one Member State (DE) provided information for inclusion in the CITES Identification Manual (see Table 3).

Table 3 Examples of research carried out/supported by MAs/SAs in 2013-2014

AT Development of guide for CITES Scientific Authorities to aid differentiation between captive-bred and wild-taken birds and reptiles

BE Feasibility tests using permanent ink for marking ivory

Improvement of national CITES trade database allowing traders to apply and pay for CITES documentation online, launched in March 2015

DE Determination of age and geographical origin of African Elephant ivory

Development of Shark NDF guidance (with TRAFFIC)

Revision of computer based software CITESwoodID to facilitate wood identification (included in the

CITES Identification Manual)

ES DNA research/database to identify bird of prey specimens

FI Bird of prey species (Falconiformes) and species of Owl (Strigiformes) - population monitoring, and research into distribution, biology and breeding

Research into the distribution of flowering plant species (Orchidaceae)

FR Research into wolves and bears

Research into Anguilla anguilla – distribution and off take

IE Research project into the challenges of making an NDF for European Eel (Anguilla anguilla)

LT Aquila pomarina and Haliaeetus albicilla – population monitoring and distribution

PT Master thesis on CITES e-permitting

Research into the population, distribution, off take and illegal trade of precious coral (Corallium rubrum), and the off take, and legal and illegal trade of European Eel (Anguilla anguilla)

Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, Lynx lynx, Felis silvestris – population monitoring, distribution, off take, eco-ethology and Management Plans

SE Canis lupus, Lynx lynx, Ursus arctos and Lutra lutra – reporting on distribution and health

SI Conservation and surveillance of wolf (Canis lupus), including ecology and improvement of human-wildlife interactions

Population level management, monitoring and conservation of brown bear (Ursus arctos)

SK Population monitoring, distribution, ethology and DNA collection of Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, Lynx lynx, and Felis silvestris

Nest monitoring of Milvus migrans, Circus pygargus, Aquila heliaca, A. chrysaetos, A. pomarina, Haliaeetus albicilla, Falco tinnunculus, F. cherrug, F. peregrinus, S. uralensis and Ciconia nigra

Population monitoring of F. vespertinus, Accipiter nisus, A. gentilis, Asio otus, Aegolius funereus, Bubo bubo, Glaucidium passerinum and Strix aluco

UK Research and publication of the intrinsic vulnerability of sharks (with TRAFFIC)

24

D1.11 Commission and CITES Secretariat informed of investigation outcomes

Most Member States provided either a negative or no answer to this question, with only six Member

States reporting that the Commission and CITES Secretariat have been informed of the outcomes

of any investigations that the Commission considered necessary be made (compared to eight in

2011-2012).

Communication, information management and exchange (D4)

D4.1/4.1b CITES/Regulation-related information computerised

All 28 Member States have all or at least some of their CITES information computerised. In addition

to most Member States having their permit issuance (27) and monitoring and reporting of data on

both legal and illegal trade (23) computerised, seven Member States have other information

computerised, such as:

notes on requirements for permits linked to Customs tariffs for CITES-listed species (EL)

a species database containing information on their levels of protection, distribution etc. (ES)

registration and marking of CITES/Regulation-listed specimens and breeders (HU, LV, SI, SK)

CITES and EU regulation information, practical information for applicants and traders and

news regarding CITES (PL)

One Member State provided details of their computerised systems, namely that an access-based

permit system was created in 2011 (used for both monitoring legal trade and permit issuance), legal

trade is reported in Excel format and Customs and enforcement databases are used to monitor and

report illegal trade (FI). Eighteen Member States have their information on Annex D listed species

(or other Regulation-relevant information) computerised.

D4.2 Access to the internet

Internet access for MAs, SAs and enforcement authorities has remained the same since 2011-2012

with 24 Member States having continuous and unrestricted access to the Internet for all authorities.

In the remaining four Member States, enforcement authorities, in particular the police, are those

with more limited access to the internet (FR, HU, IE, SK).

D4.3-4.5/4.9 Electronic information systems and websites

Electronic information systems (EIS) providing information on CITES species are available in 24

Member States, whereas 21 reported having an EIS with information on Regulation-listed species

(an increase of two Member States since 2011-2012). One Member State reported having

completely redesigned their national CITES website in 2014 with sections adapted for every type of

stakeholder (BE). All but one EIS (ES) is available through the internet.

Information on legislation was provided on all these EIS and 19 Member States also provide

information on conservation. Eight provide details on other subjects such as:

application forms for CITES documents and fees (BG, MT, SI)

national provisions, the keeping and trading of birds of prey, parrots, reptiles, amphibians,

caviar, antiques and taxidermy, and information brochures for tourists (BE)

information on registration of CITES specimens (SI)

trade statistics, permit application procedures, import of hunting trophies, personal effects, costs and labels for scientific exchanges, list of expert organisations and individuals, import

of CITES protected timber, international trade in sturgeon caviar (DE)

species identification (EL, NL)

species distributions, level of protection and import restrictions (ES)

25

relevant seizures and confiscations (Customs and police websites only (PL)

a risk assessment table for alien species (MT)

Three Member States reported that they do not have a national EIS, but can access the UNEP-

WCMC EU Wildlife Trade Database (CY, FI, IE). In 2013-2014, all 28 Member States have a

government website with information on CITES and its requirements.

D4.6/4.7 – Access to publications

All EU Management, Scientific and Enforcement authorities have access to the Checklist of CITES

species (book or CD Rom), Identification Manual and CITES Handbook with the following

exceptions:

Checklist of CITES species (book or CD-ROM) – Belgian authorities (all), Bulgarian authorities (all), Greek EA, Lithuanian EA, Luxembourg MA and SA,

Identification Manual – Bulgarian authorities (all), Danish SA and EA, Greek EA, Lithuanian

SA and EA, Luxembourg MA and SA

CITES Handbook – Belgian authorities (all), Bulgarian authorities (all), Croatian EA, Danish authorities (all), Hungarian EA, Lithuanian SA and EA and Luxembourg authorities (all),

Spanish authorities (all),

Of these Member States, two noted that the Checklist/CITES Handbook was no longer used/needed

as the information was available online via the CITES website or Species + (BE, ES). Another left the

entire question blank, however some of its authorities appeared to have access to these publications

during the previous reporting period (BG). Others noted that they mainly used the Internet to

gather information as well as a selection of online identification manuals (DK), and that their MA

and SA had access to various databases for species identification (LU).

D4.8 Enforcement authorities reporting important information to the MAs

All Member States reported their enforcement authorities having shared important information with

the MAs. All passed on details of significant seizures and confiscations, however fewer Member

States reported sharing information on permit discrepancies (15) and mortality in transport (11).

With regards to reporting mortality in transport, two Member States answered this question

positively even though there had been no deaths during this period (AT, FI). Other Member States

stated they had not reported on the issue for the same reason, i.e. that there was no mortality in

transport (LV, MT). Several Member States noted that information on permit discrepancies and

mortality in transport is recorded by CITES authorities controlling shipments and/or by Customs

authorities on CITES permits, which are returned to the MA (CZ, ES, IE, PL). One Member State

was unable to report on mortality numbers or permit discrepancies due to a lack of physical checks

carried out on the items (SE) and another reported that information on these two topics are not

reported to the MA on a regular basis (PT).

D4.10 Public awareness activities

During 2013 and 2014, CITES authorities from all Member States have been involved in public

awareness activities to bring about better accessibility to and understanding of CITES requirements.

Newspaper articles or radio/television appearances and press releases/conferences were the most

common method for raising awareness (23), followed by presentations and information provided at

border crossing points (22). When compared with 2011-2012, three more Member States reported

using brochures/leaflets to raise awareness (21 compared with 18) and one more Member State

used displays. As in 2011-2012, telephone hotlines were the least common method of raising

awareness. Three Member States appeared to have removed hotlines since the last reporting period

26

(PT, SI, UK), however one Member State (IT) newly reported using this method for raising

awareness, making a total of eight countries with this facility in place in the EU.

Three Member States reported having permanent exhibitions regarding the protection of

biodiversity and CITES information (BE, LU, SE). Four Member States reported having created,

updated, restructured or translated their websites to facilitate awareness raising (EL, FI, LV, SK).

Other activities included providing information at a number of trade and travel fairs (DK) and

training programmes for enforcement officials, prosecutors and veterinarians (BE, HR, LV, PT). A

number of Member States provided examples and details of these activities and some of the different

methods/topics covered are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 Examples of public awareness activities

BE -Various press releases including on the destruction of ivory stockpiles and court rulings on illegal

trade in birds of prey

-Brochures/leaflets, press releases and television appearances on the problems of purchasing

souvenirs made of protected flora and fauna abroad

-Magazine and newspaper articles on the CITES up-listing of shark species

-Specific guidance sent to antique dealers, taxidermists, tropical timber importers, tortoise

breeders, musical instrument owners and hunting associations.

BG -Workshop and training days, seminars and an information guide aimed at tackling the

overexploitation of Danube sturgeons

DE -Press release appealing to the public not to keep primates as pets due to their complex

behavioural ecology and needs in captivity

-Information document issued at a Vintage Guitar Show informing musicians, luthiers, wholesalers

and wood trading companies about the legal requirements when dealing with CITES protected

wood products

-Press release and results on elephant surveys conducted in Tanzania to help resource protection

and anti-poaching efforts

ES -Press releases on two major operations related to illegal trade in eels and the keeping of exotic

animals

-Cabinet with confiscated specimens exhibited in Tenerife

HR -Information displays at Zagreb International Airport regarding CITES and World Wildlife Day

HU -Various festivals including information displays, games and detector dog demonstrations for the

public

IE -Bilingual information booklet about the dangers of purchasing products and souvenirs made of

protected flora and fauna abroad, CITES regulation and its legal requirements

LV -Seminars organised for hunters and pet shop owners

-Nine CITES presentations shown to over 175 students and school children

PL -Lectures on CITES regulation to postgraduate students, falconry conferences, police and

customs services

SK -CITES information display at the Bratislava Airport

-Event (with over 750 participants) to destroy 8 illegally imported rhino horn to alert the public

on the critical situation of illegal killing of rhinos and trade in rhino horn. Leaflets, stickers,

information panels and posters were created and displayed at event

UK -Government hosted an international conference on illegal wildlife trade in 2014

-Press releases from the UK’s National Wildlife Crime Unit and Animal and Plant Health Agency

Permitting and registration procedures (D5.2-D5.14)

D5.2 Written permit procedures

The majority of Member States have developed written procedures for permit issuance/acceptance

(22), registration of traders (18) and the registration of producers (16). In 2013-2014, five Member

27

States reported not having developed procedures for any of these, one of which reported having

these in place for permit issuance/acceptance in 2011-2012 (AT).

D5.3 CITES documents issued and denied

The total number of permits issued and applications denied across the EU in 2013 and 2014 were

579 321 and 1316 respectively. Details of the numbers of different types of permits issued and

denied by individual Member States are provided in Annex 6.

The overall total numbers of permits issued per reporting (two year) period, over the last six years,

have been similar. However, there are differences between the last three reporting periods in both

the total numbers of different types of permits issued and the distribution of total numbers and

types of permits across Member States, see Figures 1 and 2. Overall, there appears to have been an

steady increase in the number of both export and re-export permits issued over the last six years – from 18 154 to 28 369 export permits, and from 210 676 to 359 368 re-export permits, issued

for the 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 two year periods. On the other hand the number of

import/introduction from the sea permits issued appears to have declined, from 249 100 (2009-

2010) to 136 856 (2013-2014). In 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, the greatest number of permits issued

were for re-export (56-62%). The reduction in numbers of “Other” permits (EC certificates,

personal ownership certificates, sample collection permits and non-CITES declarations) from 2009-

2010 to the two more recent reporting periods can be mainly attributed to the fact that the UK did

not report issuing any such permits in the latter (see below).

Figure 1 Permits issued by all EU Member States in between 2009 and 2014, by type

Member States issuing the highest number of permits in 2009-2010, 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, are

shown in Figure 2. France, Italy, the UK and Germany (in order of importance) were together

responsible for issuing over 85% of all permits over the last six years.

France, Italy and Germany have reported increases in the number of permits issued over this period,

with France issuing over 200,000 permits in 2013-2014. France noted in its 2013-2014 Biennial

Report, however, that the number of permits issued were significantly lower than in previous years

because a “licence can now cover several different specimens batches” – it is unclear what this refers

to as reported overall permit numbers for France in 2013-2014 are higher than in both the previous

reporting periods, and import permits issued in 2013-2014, although less than in 2011-2012, were

similar to numbers reported for 2009-2010. Permit issuance in the UK, on the other hand, appears

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Import/Intro

sea

Export Re-export Other

Th

ou

san

d P

erm

its

2009-2010

2011-2012

2013-2014

28

to be decreasing – there was a large drop between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 with nearly 90 000

less import permits reportedly being issued in 2011-2012 (56 266 compared to 143 809 in 2009-

2010), together with no figures being reported for “other” in 2011-2012 (compared to 54 891 in

2009-2010). The number of import permits went down further in 2013-2014 to 26 061.

In the case of other Member States, most reported relatively constant or steady increases in permit

issuance over the last six years. Of note are those Member States that appear to have nearly, or

more than, doubled the number of permits issued when comparing 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 figures

– these are Cyprus (from 21 to 57), Luxembourg (from 0 to 428), Malta (from 243 to 527), Poland

(from 1081 to 2013) Romania (from 424 to 1082) and Sweden (813 to 1596).

In 2013-2014, France, Italy, the UK and Germany issued the majority of import (80%) and re-export

permits (93%), however a few other Member States also issued significant quantities of both or one

of these types of permits (over 1000), namely Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark,

Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. France, the UK and Germany issued the most

export permits also (~5000-7500 each), followed by Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy

(~1000-2000 each). France issued the most “other” permits/certificates, followed by Portugal

(~13 500), Belgium (~8000) and Italy (~7000). The following Member States issued 250 or less

permits during 2013-2014: Estonia (250), Lithuania (241), Croatia (57) and Cyprus (57).

Figure 2 Total number of permits issued by EU Member States between 2009 and 2014

(import/introduction from the sea, export, re-export and other permits and certificates combined)

Based on the FTE staff time calculated from staff numbers and percentage time spent on CITES issues provided in questions D1.5, 1.6, 2.5 and 2.6 and total permits issued as reported for 2013-

2014, there appears to be a large variation in the average number of permits issued per day of

available MA staff time across Member States. MA staff in five Member States each issued over five

permits per day in 2013-2014 (LU, FR, DE, PT, UK). Eleven Member States (AT, BE, DK, EE, EL, ES,

IT, NL, RO, SE, SK) issued 1 - 4 permits per day per MA staff member and the remaining 12 Member

States (BG, CY, CZ, FI, HR, HU, IE, LT, LV, MT, PL, SI) issued less than one permit per day per staff

member.

Twelve Member States reported refusing at least one permit application in 2013-2014, the majority

of these being the same Member States that reported this in previous reporting periods. Many of

the remaining Member States either left this part of the question blank or noted that quantities were

0

50

100

150

200

250

Th

ou

san

d P

erm

its

2009-2010

2011-2012

2013-2014

29

not recorded – it is therefore unknown whether some or no applications were denied in these

countries.

France, the UK and the Netherlands were responsible for most refusals (1291, 98%), with all other

Member States refusing less than ten applications each. In proportion to the total number of permits

issued in each Member State, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Netherlands and the UK denied the most

applications (over 0.5%). Overall, denied applications represented approximately 0.25% of permits

issued (the same percentage as in previous reporting periods). Applications for Import/Introduction

to the Sea and “Other” permits were those most commonly denied.

D5.4-5.6 Cancelled/replaced or reasons for rejection of CITES documents

Only five Member States reported having cancelled and replaced CITES documents due to severe

omissions or mis-information. The reasons behind this included absence of a Customs “visa” at the time of (re)export (FR), inadvertent mistakes or omissions (EL, ES, IT, NL) and false premises that

the conditions for its issuance were met (SK). One other Member State, although answering no to

this question, noted that some permits were replaced due their deadline of validity having passed or

inadvertent mistakes in the application (LV).

Nineteen Member States reported rejecting CITES documents from other countries during this

period. Insufficient basis for finding of non-detriment was the most common reason (12), followed

by technical violations (9) and suspected fraud (8). Insufficient basis for finding of legal acquisition

was reported as a reason by seven Member States. Other reasons reported by Member States

included the application being presented after an import attempt or the use of inappropriate

documentation (BG), lack of required marking (ES), the suspension of imports into the EU (BG, EL,

RO), falsified or expired export permits (ES, FI) and inaccurate procedures used for the issuance of

a retrospective export permit (PL).

D5.7 Use of harvest/export quotas as management tool for issuing permits

Thirteen Member States reported using harvest/export quotas as a management tool in the

procedure of issuance of permits in 2013-2014. Four Member States stated that they do not

normally export native wild-taken specimens (or this is not permitted) (AT, DE, FR, PL) but that

they always verify quotas set by exporting countries when issuing import permits. Two Member

States reported having harvest/hunting quotas for species such as Brown Bear, Wolf or Lynx (FI, SI).

The zero export quota in place for European Eel since 2011 was also described by Member States.

D5.8 Scientific Authority requested to provide opinions

Over half of the Member States provided actual numbers in answer to this question. For those that

did, the number of times that the SA was requested to provide an opinion during the two year

period were as follows: once (LU); 5-20 times (FI, MT); 20-30 (LT, PT, SI); 60-70 (CY, EL, IE); 100-

200 (BE, ES, NL); 200-300 (PL), 500-1000 (FR); and ~20 000 times (UK). Other Member States

provided a percentage of 100% (SE), or stated that the authority was consulted (nearly) every time

(AT, CZ, HR, IT, SK), frequently (EE) or a few times a year/occasionally (HU, LV). One Member

State reported that they had no data compiled on the number of opinions requested (DK).

A number of Member States described the different procedures followed for assessing whether

internal trade, exports and imports should be permitted, including the decisions made by the SRG.

One noted that since 1997, the number of decisions taken at the SRG level has increased

considerably and these decisions now apply to species/countries combinations making up about 60%

of all import applications. The same Member State noted in the case of exports that its SAs were

most often requested to provide advice on whether conditions for artificial propagation or breeding

in captivity had been met (DE). Another Member State noted that its SA provides a yearly opinion

30

for the export of live tortoises born and bred in captivity by registered national operations, which

are regularly checked by the SA and competent inspectors (SI). Two Member States specifically

noted that their SAs are not consulted for the import of small leather products such as watch straps

(AT, SI). One Member State noted requesting various reports from its SA regarding topics such as

controls over captive-breeding, whether facilities are appropriate for housing live Annex A

specimens, nomenclature and disposal of confiscated specimens (ES).

When comparing the numbers of permits issued with SA referrals (see Annex 710), Member States

generally fell into three broad categories: those that contacted their SAs for opinions on more than

70% of all permit applications (AT CY CZ EE HR SE SK); those that contacted their SAs in 10-40%

of all cases (DE HU IE LT PL SI UK); and those that contacted their SAs for less than 4% of all permit

applications. 50% of all Member States fall into the latter category, five Member States (BE, FR, LV,

LU, PT) having requested opinions from their SA for less than 1% of all permit applications during

2013-2014, according to the information provided in their Biennial Reports.

D5.9/5.9b/5.11 Fees for CITES/Regulation-related matters, and use of revenue

Twenty-three Member States charge fees for either CITES or Regulation-related matters. The

majority of these charge for issuance of CITES documents (22), with fewer Member States charging

for other services such as licensing or registration of operations that produce CITES species (10),

or use (6) importing (5) or harvesting (2) of CITES-listed species. No Member State charges fees for

the assignment of quotas for CITES listed species, however a few provided details on charging for other services such as:

internal EU trade documents such as EC certificates

“non-CITES” /negative statements

certificates for exemption of prohibition of commercial activities

phytosanitary certificates

official labels for caviar

marking for crocodilian skins, and

registration of CITES-listed species for personal use.

Of those Member States charging for at least one of the services described, four reported that such fees are used entirely for the implementation of CITES or conservation (BE, EE, NL, UK) and six

that the fees are partly used for this purpose (CZ, ES, IT, PT, SI, SK). Ten Member States reported

that revenues are not used at all for implementation of CITES, however, one of these specifically

noted that these fees help to cover the administrative costs of the permitting authority (FI). One

Member State also noted that it gets funding to partially finance a designated CITES Rescue Centre

not from fees, but from penalties imposed for environmental offences and from the sale of

confiscated specimens of CITES Appendix II and III-listed species (BG).

D5.13 Percentage of issued permits returned

Twenty-five Member States were able to provide an indication of the percentage of permits/

certificates that were returned to the MA after endorsement by Customs, ranging from 65% (UK) to 100% (DE, MT). Since the last reporting period, there has been an increase in the number of

Member States reporting return percentages of 80% or more (19 compared to 14).

10 50% of Member States provided actual numbers of SA referrals in their Biennial Reports. For the remainder, SA referral numbers were

estimated where possible from the descriptions provided, which in many cases included approximate percentages of total permit applications.

31

D5.14 Places of introduction and export

All but one Member State (FR) reported having compiled a list of places of introduction and export

in accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation 338/97. A table of all designated places in the EU

is regularly updated and provided on the EU CITES website.

Additional permit and registration procedures (D5.15-D5.20)

Questions D5.15 to D5.20 ask Member States to provide information on the registration of persons

or bodies and scientific institutions, the approval of breeders, the licensing of caviar (re-) packaging

plants and use of phytosanitary certificates or retrospective issuance of permits, according to various

articles in EC Regulation No. 865/2006. Due to the nature of the questions, Member States either

provided all relevant information or only new information applicable to this reporting period.

Further details provided with each question are therefore summarised in order to complement the

yes/no answers presented in the summary table, in an attempt to provide a better overview of the

situation in respect to the implementation of these articles within the EU.

D5.15 Registration of persons or bodies (Art. 18/19)

Four Member States reported having registered companies under the provisions of Article 18 or

19, however none provided details of any individual companies. One Member State detailed that it

has 35 companies registered under the provisions of Article 19, but none registered under Article

18 (UK) and another Member State noted that although there had been no new registrations, pre-

issued documents under Article 19 were used for (re-)exports of snake venom from Daboia russelii

originated from captive bred specimens and hair brushes made of Mustela sibirica (DE).

D5.16 Registration of scientific institutions (Art. 60)

Seven Member States reported having registered scientific institutions in accordance with Article

60. Two Member State provided details of all registered scientific institutions (AT, HR), another

noted that all national zoos that are members of the Swedish Zoo Association are registered (SE),

and another stated that approximately 250 institutions are issued with certificates under Article 60

(UK). Another Member State reported that in 2013 the first institution was registered under this

system (ES). One Member State specified that it does not use Article 60 for allowing certain scientific

institutions to exchange or transfer Annex A specimens for commercial purposes, but that it may

be used for the (commercial) display of Annex A specimens in zoos. It also noted that certain

scientific institutions have been registered to use labels for moving specimens in line with Article 7

(4) of Council Regulation and Article 52 of the Commission Regulation and provided the link to the

CITES Register of scientific institutions (DE).

D5.17 Approval of breeders (Art. 63)

Of all 28 Member States, only one reported having approved breeders in accordance with Article

63 (UK), of which there are 110.

D5.18 Licensing of caviar (re-)packaging (Art. 66 (7))

Since 2011-2012, there has been an increase in the number of Member States reported having

licensed caviar (re-)packaging plants in accordance with Article 66 (7), with there now being 16

rather than 13. Member States provided varying levels of information under this question including

details of all plants or only newly listed ones, referring to the information published on the CITES

website or listing the total number and/or number of newly licensed plants. From this information

it can be inferred that at least 28 new caviar plants across seven Member States (AT, BG, CZ, DE,

EL, ES, HU, PL) were added to the CITES register during 2013-2014. Two Member States also noted

having each removed one caviar plant from the register during this reporting period (BG, SK).

32

D5.19 Use of phytosanitary certificates (Art.17)

Seven Member States reported issuing phytosanitary certificates instead of CITES permits for the

export of artificially propagated plants destined for third countries that accept these documents in

accordance with Article 17. Details of the authorities authorised to issue these types of certificates

were provided by a number of Member States (BE, CZ, DE, DK). One Member State specified they

are only used for the export of artificially propagated plants to Switzerland (AT). Another noted

that it accepts phytosanitary certificates issued by third countries for species listed in Annexes B

and C and for artificially propagated hybrids produced from un-annotated species listed in Annex A,

but does not issue them instead of an export permit in their own country (SI).

D5.20 Retrospective issuing of (re-) exports permits/certificates

Six Member States reported having issued (re-)export permits retrospectively in accordance with

Article 15. The maximum number of retrospective permits issued by a single Member State (DE)

were 36, and the MA had been consulted prior to issuing these in all cases.

Capacity building (D6)

D6.1 Activities to enhance effectiveness

Nineteen Member States reported having carried out at least one activity to enhance the

effectiveness of CITES implementation at the national level, in particular the improvement of national

networks (14 Member States) and computerisation (12). Nine Member States reported developing

implementation tools and seven purchased technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement. Only

two Member States hired more staff (ES, FI) and one had access to an increased budget for their

activities (ES). Other specific activities included MA and SA staff providing lectures in advanced

CITES training seminars for Customs officers already specialised in CITES issues (DE), training or

distributing leaflets and posters to enforcement authorities, schools, universities and the public (EL,

LV), and producing guidelines for inspectors after a change in national CITES legislation (SK).

D6.2 Recipients of capacity building

Twenty-one Member States (three more than in 2011-2012) reported receiving capacity building

from external sources during 2013-2014.

This was mostly received by enforcement authority staff (17 Member States), followed closely by

MA (13 Member States) and SA staff (12 Member states) in the form of oral or written

advice/guidance and/or training. Six Member States reported on their CITES authorities receiving

technical assistance from external sources (BE, BG, ES, FR, MT, SK) and in five Member States,

traders and/or the public also received capacity building mostly in the form of oral or written

advice/guidance and/or training (DK, EE, ES, PT, SE), but also through awareness campaigns and

lectures (PL). Four Member States reported that NGOs in their countries received some form of

capacity building from external sources (EE, ES, HR, PL).

External sources providing this capacity building included the European Commission, CITES

Secretariat, UNEP-WCMC, MAs, SAs and enforcement authorities from other countries (often

through EU-TWIX), Europol, Interpol, WCO, universities, veterinary authorities, zoos, TRAFFIC

and IUCN. In several cases, capacity building was also received from internal sources (national CITES

authorities), and details of this were provided under this question, in addition to under D6.3.

D6.3 Providers of capacity building

National authorities in 24 Member States provided some form of capacity building to others in this

reporting period. Twenty-two Member States provided oral or written guidance to CITES authority

33

staff, traders, NGOs, the public and/or other parties and 18 Member States provided training, mostly

to their authorities, but also to traders, NGOs and the public. Ten Member States reported carrying

out regular training, in particular for enforcement authorities (CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HU, LV, NL, SI,

UK) and eight Member States reported having been the providers of capacity building at international

meetings (CZ, DE, ES, HU, IE, MT, PT, UK).

A number of Member States provided details of their specific capacity building activities. For

example, information and assistance was provided via email and phone to stakeholders (BE, EL),

guidance was provided to safari/hunting trip organisers and Game Authorities (FI), travel agencies

(LT), musicians and orchestras (FI), veterinary authorities (HU), and to keepers, traders and various

“keeper” associations (BE, EE, MT, SI). Training was also provided to prosecutors and/or judges (BE,

HU), on timber identification (DE) and on tackling illegal trade in Turkey (DE). Three Member States

reported participating in the Commission-funded Twinning Project and providing training in Serbia

and Turkey (ES, PT, UK). Others have presented or lectured to various audiences, ranging from

travel fairs (FI), manufacturers of musical instruments (BE, DE) and post-graduate veterinary

surgeons (PL).

Other capacity building examples include:

CITES exhibitions at museums (EE)

organising and leading the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) in 2014 which resulted in funding commitments until 2018 (UK)

developing an electronic newsletter concerning timber trade (DE)

running a Masters programme dedicated to the Management, Conservation and Control of Species in International Trade (ES)

lecturing for the afore-mentioned Masters programme (PT, UK)

training provided to Vietnamese enforcement authorities (FR)

organising a conference entitled “Active protection of the osprey on the Polish and German

borderland” (PL)

funding the IUCN-SSC African Elephant Specialist Group, tiger conservation initiatives and

programmes to tackle the poaching and illegal trade in ivory/rhino horn (DE)

participating in the international project SAMBAH (Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic

Sea Harbour Porpoise) (PL).

Further information on capacity building can be found under technical and financial assistance

(D7.9/7.10) and public awareness activities (D4.10).

Collaboration/co-operative initiatives (D7)

D7.1-D7.3 Inter-agency committee or other meetings

A total of nine Member States reported having a national inter-agency or inter-sectoral committee on CITES. One Member State has newly introduced such a committee comprising officials from the

MA, SA, Nature Protection Inspection, Crime Police Directorate, Central Customs Office,

Phytosanitary and Veterinary Border Inspections, with meetings being held at least once a year and

officials being in constant contact and cooperating throughout the year (HR).

Although answering “yes” to this question, one Member State does not seem to have a committee

other than for enforcement (CZ), and another Member State’s advisory committee ceased working

in 2007 and therefore it does not currently appear to have an inter-agency or inter-sectoral

committee (DE). Having answered “yes” in 2011-2012, one Member State now reports not having

34

any such a committee (MT). Further information on these committees can be found in Table 8 of

the 2009-2010 Biennial Report Analysis (Crook, 201211).

To ensure co-ordination amongst CITES authorities; the MAs of most other Member States hold

meetings once or several times a year and consultations on a weekly basis. A few specified they hold

meetings or consultations on a case by case basis only, when required (BG, CY, EL, RO).

D7.4 Efforts to collaborate with other agencies

Twenty-four Member States reported making an effort to collaborate on a national level with other

agencies, authorities or persons in 2013-2014, predominantly trade or other private sector

associations (21 Member States), NGOs (19) and provincial, state or territorial authorities (18).

Fewer Member States reported having collaborated with local authorities or communities (12) or

agencies for development and trade (10). “Other” agencies that Member States collaborated with include food safety agencies (BE), veterinary and fishery services (EL), zoos and airports (SK). No

Member States reported co-operating with indigenous peoples during this reporting period.

Member States provided similar examples of collaborations in the last two reporting periods (2009-

2010 and 2011-2012) – these can be viewed in Table 9 of the 2009-2010 analysis.

D7.5 Memoranda of Understanding

Eighteen Member States reported that Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) or other formal

arrangements for institutional co-operation related to CITES have been agreed between the MA

and other national agencies, mostly commonly with Customs (16 Member States), SAs (9), other

government agencies (7), including the food safety agencies (BE, BG), and the police (7). One Member State reported having formal agreements with other border authorities for veterinary and

phytosanitary inspection (HR), one reported having such an agreement with NGOs such as TRAFFIC

(BE); none reported having such agreements with private sector bodies. Two Member States

reported having formal agreements set up with “others” such as the prosecutors department (PT)

and the CITES Secretariat (UK).

When compared with 2011-2012, there were few reported changes in the Member States, actual

agreements and agencies involved. One Member State implemented formal agreements with

Customs, SAs, the Police and other border authorities after its accession to the EU (HR), and two

Member States appeared to have removed their formal agreements all together (CY, SI). The

Member States that reported having agreements “in preparation” in 2011-2012, still reported them

as being “in preparation” in 2013-2014 (CZ, FR).

D7.6 Regional CITES activities

Twenty-four Member States participated in regional activities such as workshops, meetings, seminars

and study visits in 2013-2014. In addition to EU meetings such as the Management Committee

(COM), SRG and Enforcement Group, other regional activities included attending/participating in

seminars concerning sturgeon protection and caviar trade (BG), the Commission-organised

conference on the EU approach against wildlife trafficking (BG), the European Regional CITES Plants

Meeting in the Netherlands (DE), timber identification workshops and the National Environmental

Security Seminar (NESS) (EL), a Twinning Project with Serbia on strengthening the capacities of

CITES authorities (HU), and meetings of the working groups on wolves in Germany and Belarus

(PL).

11 Crook, V. (2012). Analysis of EU Member State CITES Biennial Reports 2009-2010. Report prepared for the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2009-2010.pdf

35

See also C12-C15 for more enforcement-related regional activities.

D7.7/7.8 Encouraging a non-Party to join CITES

One Member State reported having assisted the EU, together with other EU Member States, in its

accession to the Convention during this reporting period (IE).

D7.9/7.10 Technical or financial assistance

Nine Member States reported having provided technical or financial assistance to another country

in relation to CITES during this reporting period, with one new Member State involved in 2013-

2014 (EE). Some Member States provided extensive details under this section, in addition to

information on capacity building and assistance under related questions such as D6.1-6.3 and C13.

One Member State reported providing assistance across various countries in Europe and Asia

through presenting information and lecturing at workshops on CITES implementation, illegal wildlife

trade and timber species identification; initiating a project tackling illegal trade in ivory/rhino-horn

in Africa; sharing CITES expertise on visits and missions; running enforcement training and

developing an online database for international species conservation (WISIA) (DE).

Other technical assistance provided by Member States included:

training, computer programme and translations of identification guides for Turkey as part of the Twinning project (ES)

capacity building in Kenya and forensic training programmes for rangers in Botswana (NL)

translating all CITES training materials (PL)

deployment of forensic technology to combat elephant poaching (DE) and

training on CITES permit issuance and CITES provisions in national legislation to Serbian

authorities (ES, RO)

Financial assistance included providing funds for:

a three year work programme of the IUCN-SSC African Elephant Specialist Group (DE)

support of the African Elephant Action Plan (NL)

support to developing countries to combat wildlife crime (UK)

EU-TWIX (EE)

five year integrated tiger conservation programme (IUCN, DE)

carrying out a 35 year global overview of trade in CITES Appendix I species (WCMC, DE)

developing improved guidance for making of NDFs for plants and sharks (TRAFFIC and

IUCN, DE)

the participation of developing countries in international CITES meetings (FI) and

project WCO-INAMA and the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime,

ICCWC (SE, UK).

D7.13/7.14 Measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce duplication between CITES and

other MEAs

Fourteen Member States reported having taken some kind of measures to ensure co-ordination

between MEAs. These measures include all biodiversity-related Conventions being administered by

the same governmental department in several Member States, and in some cases the same person

being responsible for CITES and other MEAs (FI, PT). Co-ordination is also achieved through the

use of focal points (ES, FI, MT, SI) and close collaboration between staff (DK, EE). One Member

State has a national “Coordinating Committee for International Environmental Policy” and in 2013-

2014 its CITES authorities and experts on other environmental issues participated in several

meetings and discussions aimed at co-ordinating international policy work, such as the preparation

of an EU legal instrument on invasive alien species (BE).

36

Areas for future work (D8)

The main priorities to enhance the effectiveness of CITES at the national level for all Member States

in 2013-2014 were the same as in 2011-2012, namely hiring of more staff, improvement of national

networks and increased budget for activities. Development of implementation tools was reported

as more of a priority in 2013-2014 than in the previous period, with two Member States increasing

their priority level for this (ES, SE). Computerisation was also reported as more of a priority in

2013-2014 with four Member States increasing this to medium or high priority (BE, BG, DK, LT).

Purchasing of technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement was less of a priority than during the

last reporting period, with five Member States decreasing this priority to medium or low (BE, BG,

CY, MT, PL). Other specific national priorities included sensitization/training of/for the judiciary (AT,

PL), creation of a centre for confiscated CITES-listed animal species (PL) and species identification

training (SK).

Three Member States stated that they had encountered some difficulties when implementing specific

CITES Resolutions/Decisions or EU suspensions/negative opinions. Specifically in relation to CITES

Resolutions/Decisions one raised a number of problems in relation to definitions – namely that of

“artificially propagated” in Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev CoP15), and logs and sawn wood in Resolution

10.13 (Rev CoP15) (ES). Another Member State noted there being problems with the annotations

for Vicugna vicugna (FR). One Member State raised several questions relating to how to handle

import applications for species/combinations for which EU opinions have changed in recent years

(from a negative or no opinion to a positive opinion and vice versa), in particular for cases where

original exports from range States occurred to third countries when such opinions were different

from current opinions, and now these third countries are wishing to re-export the specimens to

the EU (BE). Another notes difficulties in dealing with opinions covering specific populations found

in the same country and those related to timber species, for which additional information on the

point of extraction from the wild and legality is required (ES).

Nine Member States reported a number of constraints to national implementation of CITES or the

Regulations that require attention or assistance, namely:

shortage of resources and/or personnel, in the MA/SA (IE, HR, MT) or for enforcement (HR, MT) and lack of expertise with regards to CITES issues and procedures (HR)

difficulties controlling internal EU movement and determining the legality of specimens, in

particular of Annex B specimens and those bred in captivity (ES, HU, PL)

unclear definitions of various terms such as “Introduction into the Community”,

“Significant Seizure” and “Physical and Behavioural Properties” (MT)

lack of obligatory marking requirements (ES)

proving legal origin of live or dead Annex A specimens owned for “personal use” (ES)

issues with bordering countries which do not have established MAs, SAs and permit issuing systems (HR)

difficulties in refusing CITES documents for repeat offenders who have been penalised for

CITES related violations (NL)

large number of different types of documentation that are used to provide information on

the origin and legality of CITES specimens in trade (ES)

shortage of appropriate premises for the temporary keeping of confiscated specimens (HR)

lenient court rulings for offences concerning Annex A listed specimens (AT)

species identification (CY)

The first two points above were raised by the highest number of Member States, and the first three

points were issues that were mentioned in 2011-2012. The others are all new examples of

constraints described by Member States for the 2013-2014 period.

37

Finally, in addition to dealing with some of the issues highlighted above, Member States identified

the following measures, procedures or mechanisms within the Convention that would benefit from

review and/or simplification:

handling of cosmetics containing tiny amounts of CITES species derivatives (e.g.

homeopathic products and caviar in creams) (FR)

simplified procedures for permit issuance (ES)

return certificates as scans via email instead of by post (LU)

verification of documents via the creation of a confidential database gathering examples of

permits and certificates being used by the Parties (PL)

derogations/exemptions for personal effects and plants, which are very difficult to implement in practice (ES, HU)

annotations for timber species (SE).

38

DISCUSSION – NEW REPORTING FORMAT

The EU Analysis aims to provide an overview of the implementation and enforcement of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations across the EU and in individual Member States in 2013 and 2014, including

any apparent reported changes in implementation compared with 2009-2010 and 2011-2012. When

comparing Biennial Reports from these last three periods, there were few significant changes in

implementation of the Regulations.

The discussion and conclusions in the 2009-2010 Biennial Report Analysis summarised strengths,

successes, examples of good practice or possibilities for improvement for 2009-2010, with a focus

on implementation of the 2007 EU Enforcement Action Plan, and for 2011-2012 a selection of new

examples of, or changes in, implementation were discussed in more detail. As there have been very

few changes in reported implementation for 2013-2014, this information is not repeated here.

Instead the discussion focuses on the usefulness of data and information that has been collated

through the Biennial Reports over the years for monitoring implementation of CITES and the EU

Wildlife Trade Regulations, and specifically the questions and topics of relevance that may not be

included in the new reporting format being proposed.

Plans are underway to replace the current CITES Biennial Report format with a new

“Implementation Report” structure around the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2020 (Resolution Conf.

16.3) to allow direct input of the information collated into the Strategic Vision indicators. The most

recent version of the new proposed format has been submitted for approval by the Standing

Committee in January 2016.

The EU Biennial Report format is currently composed of two Parts – Part 1 which is completed by

all CITES Parties, and Part 2 which contains supplementary questions specifically related to the

provisions of the EU Wildlife Regulations and the Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC (the

2007 EU Enforcement Action Plan, see also introduction), which was agreed by the EU CITES

Management Committee (COM) in 2008. Questions in the CITES Implementation Report being

proposed to replace the current CITES Biennial Report (Part 1) are very different from those in the

current Part 1. The EU would therefore need to review the relevance of the questions currently

included in Part 2 and consider whether a new Part 2 with additional questions specifically applicable

to the EU, or covering topics that have now been removed from Part 1 but are deemed important for monitoring implementation of CITES and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, may be warranted.

The new proposed CITES Implementation Report format was reviewed and compared to the

current Biennial Report Parts 1 and 2 and questions/topics for consideration/possible inclusion in a

new Part 2 by EU Member States are provided in this discussion. There are also ongoing plans to

develop a new EU Action Plan12 and therefore monitoring implementation under this will also need

to be considered.

Questions/topics from Part 1 not included in the new report format

B5 (B5b) Stricter domestic measures

Question B5 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report asks Parties to provide information on issues

addressed by nationally adopted stricter domestic measures for CITES-listed species, and specifically

on conditions for/the prohibition of trade, taking, possession and transport. Part 2 of the Biennial

Report requests additional information on this, with regards to non-CITES listed species.

12 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_env_087_action_plan_wild_trafficking_en.pdf

39

The information on stricter domestic measures for EU Member States is collated into a table as part

of the EU Biennial Report analyses (see Annex 4 for information for 2013-2014) and can be used to

compare the situation between Member States. Based on experience and feedback from EU Member

States, this can be particularly useful in cases where there are prohibitions on the trade or

possession of certain taxa, specific measures for native species, or strict marking and/or registration

requirements in place in certain countries, so that other Parties are aware of these when handling

trade from/to these countries. This can help to ensure they are complying with the requirements of

the trading partner and also specifically in the case of the EU, could be useful for making comparisons

of measures across countries and whether these affect permit applications/trade (e.g. traders from

third countries may be focusing on certain EU Member States for first import of certain

taxa/specimens, where stricter measures are not in place). In addition, this information can be useful

for CITES Parties without stricter measures in place and who might wish to consider them for

specific problems arising, if they are working successfully in other Parties.

The current question format for B5 (and B5b) is not ideal for collating the detailed information that

is the most relevant and interesting to Parties, and if a question on stricter domestic measures were

to be considered for inclusion in a new Part 2 to the Implementation Report, it would benefit from

re-wording so that all Member States provide the key measures and related legislation, possibly

within certain agreed categories.

C12/13 Cooperative enforcement activities

Questions C12/13 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report ask Parties to provide information on

cooperative enforcement activities they have been involved in with other countries, such as

exchange of intelligence, technical support, investigative assistance and joint operations.

Answers to this question provided by EU Member States in the past have usually included several

interesting examples of cooperative action (see section C12-C15) and can help other Parties to see

where cooperation could help/has worked and which Parties might have specific experience in this

and be willing/able to cooperate in the future. Member States have often provided the same

information under C12 as under other questions in the current Biennial Report format dealing with

capacity building or technical assistance (D6.2, D6.3 and D7.9), however this question specifically

deals with collaborative enforcement and is of specific interest to enforcement officers. This

information may therefore be collected as part of monitoring the new EU Action Plan.

If a question on cooperative enforcement action were to be considered for inclusion in a new Part

2 to the Implementation Report, a question encouraging Member States to provide examples of any

activities (including information on the other countries and authorities involved, the taxa, the timing

and the process) would ensure the best possible feedback and use of the information.

D1.8/1.9 Research related to technical issues

Questions D1.8/1.9 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report ask Parties to provide information on

any research activities their Management authorities (MAs) have undertaken or supported in relation

to CITES species or technical issues such as labelling, tagging and species identification.

The information on research undertaken/supported by both MAs and Scientific authorities (SAs)

that has been provided in past EU Biennial Reports has been summarised in a table in the analyses

(see Table 3 for examples of research carried out in 2013-2014). The new Implementation Report

includes questions on scientific research such as population monitoring, however does not request

information on research related to technical issues. It can be very useful to share information

amongst Parties on research topics, such as DNA and isotope techniques for determining the age

and/or geographic origin of specimens, wood identification and marking techniques including

40

microchips and permanent ink, so it is clear where the expertise lies and efforts are not duplicated

unnecessarily.

If a question on technical research were to be considered for inclusion in a new Part 2 to the

Implementation Report, a question encouraging Member States to provide a list of research

(including information on the taxa, the methodology and the outcome) would ensure the best

possible feedback and use of the information.

D4.8/D7.3 (D5.13) Communication/coordination between different CITES authorities

Questions D4.8 and 7.3 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report ask Parties to provide information

on communication/coordination between different CITES authorities. D4.8 covers sharing of

mortality, seizures/confiscations and permit discrepancy information between enforcement and

management authorities; and D7.3 covers frequency of meetings or consultation used by the MA to ensure coordination among CITES authorities. Question D5.13 of the current Part 2 is also related

to this topic, requesting percentages of issued permits/certificates returned to the MA after

endorsement by Customs.

The information provided under these questions in the past has been used to provide an indication

of coordination between authorities, in particular between enforcement and management

authorities, which is essential for CITES implementation and reporting thereof. Based on the

information provided in previous EU Biennial Reports it is clear that there is still room for

improvement with regards to communication and sharing of information between these authorities,

in particular in relation to providing information on permit discrepancies to ensure actual levels of

trade can be reported. Information on mechanisms used for transfer of such information, in

particular seizures and permit discrepancies, would help to identify any gaps/possible ways of

improving this and at the same time allow the sharing of good practices with interested Parties. This

could be especially relevant for Parties with de-centralised governmental systems.

If a question on communication/coordination between different CITES authorities, in particular

between management and enforcement authorities were to be considered for inclusion in a new

Part 2 to the Implementation Report, it could request for specific information on the mechanisms

used for sharing of seizure/permit information. Specifically in relation to requesting information on

the percentage of Customs’ endorsed permits to the MA (currently D5.13 in Part 2) – a similar

question could provide useful answers, however its precise meaning would need to be clarified. Two

types of information could be provided under this – the percentage of permits actually used (i.e. all

permits that have been used are returned, and return percentages of less than 100% only refer to

those permits that were not used), or the percentage of used permits actually returned (i.e.

percentages of less than 100% indicate that several permits, although having been used, are not

returned to the MA).

D5.3 Permits/CITES documents issued/denied

Question 5.3 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report asks Parties to provide information on the

number of CITES documents issued and denied over the relevant two year period. This question

specifically refers to issued documents and not trade quantities (actual trade or trade based on

permits as reported in Annual Reports).

A comparison of trade volumes of all taxa reported by CITES Parties would ideally provide an

indication of the respective role of different Parties in international wildlife trade. However, due to

the many different commodities being traded, in addition to the many different units used to report

this, establishing these relevant roles from trade data can be very difficult. The number of

permits/certificates issued can provide a useful basic measure of the importance of a country in

wildlife trade and also the relevant administrative burden imposed on countries to issue permits

41

(understanding that individual permits can include several species/commodities). In addition to

establishing the relevant roles of each of the EU Member States with regards to imports, exports,

re-exports and internal EU trade, analysis of permit numbers provided in previous EU Biennial

Reports have enabled comparisons over time and of trade directions, i.e. whether the EU has a

whole has become an increasingly important exporter versus a historically important importer (see

section 5.3), both of which can be useful for decision-making and setting of priorities/targeting.

EU Member States regularly provided complete information on issued permits in their previous

Biennial Reports, however data quality would likely have been improved by providing clear

definitions of the different categories (import, export, re-export and other) as there appeared to be

some different interpretation across Member States (such as where to include import notifications).

Furthermore, few Member States provided information on denied applications, which would be

useful to establish the level of scrutiny imposed by countries during the permit issuing process. Due

to the afore-mentioned reasons, EU Member States are encouraged to consider the inclusion of a

permits issued/denied question with clear category definitions in a new Part 2 to the Implementation

Report, as this aspect is currently completely missing from the new reporting format.

D5.6 Reasons for rejecting any CITES documents

Question 5.6 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report asks Parties to provide reasons for rejection

of CITES documents from other countries. Reasons include technical violations, suspected fraud and

insufficient basis for a NDF or legal acquisition.

Simple Yes/No answers were mainly provided under this question in previous EU Biennial Reports,

however some Member States provided more specific details of these reasons, including information

on fraud and technical violations (such as lack of marking) which could be of interest to other CITES

Parties. If Parties were able/requested to provide details of number of rejections together with the

specific reasons and the countries involved, this may be very useful for future targeting of

action/capacity building. A question on this could be considered for inclusion in a new Part 2 to the

Implementation Report.

D5.8 Requesting opinions from the SA

Question 5.8 of Part 1 in the current Biennial Report asks Parties to report the number of times

their SA has been requested to provide opinions.

According to Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 permits should only be issued after obtaining an opinion

from the competent SA. SAs must examine available data and consider any opinion from the

Scientific Review Group (SRG) before advising the MAs whether trade should be permitted. SA

opinions are valid for subsequent imports as long as the conservation status of the species, the

extent of its territory occupied or current or anticipated levels of trade have not changed.

Therefore, it is not likely that every permit application would require the MA to consult with the

SA, if they already have information from similar previous applications, and SRG opinions, readily

available. Nevertheless, it is expected that MAs would still need to request the opinion of their SA

in a number of new cases every year and when they are in any doubt of the current

trade/legal/conservation situation for the species/country in question.

Having information on the mechanisms used by individual EU Member States to ensure appropriate

checks are made by the SA would be of great use when assessing implementation of the EU Wildlife

Trade Regulations. The usability of information provided by Member States under this question in

previous Biennial Reports, however, has been limited, as some provide actual numbers, some

approximate percentages of total applications referred to the SA and others general explanations

such as “on a case by case basis” or “regularly”. Only a few described the different procedures

followed for assessing whether internal trade, exports and imports should be permitted, including

42

the decisions made by the SRG, and these answers provided the most interesting information for

analysis (see section 5.8).

If a question on SA opinions were to be considered for inclusion in a new Part 2 to the

Implementation report, it would be important that the wording allows Member States to provide

details of the actual SA consultation process and to report if this is being carried out to an adequate

level nationally. If this is not the case, then it would be important to know why not, this information

being vital when proposing improvements to the process and to ensuring the scientific rigour of

CITES is upheld.

Questions/topics from Part 2 of particular interest/importance for monitoring

implementation

B8b Review of legislation – marking

Question B8b of Part 2 in the current Biennial Report asks EU Member States to report on

legislation reviews carried out, including marking to facilitate the identification of specimens.

Marking requirements at the national and EU levels have been developed to prevent fraud and to

curtail illegal trade in specimens subject to the provisions of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. For

example, marking requirements can act as a deterrent to those contemplating illegal trade in Annex-

listed species (that fall under marking requirements), as well as assisting authorities in monitoring

and controlling wildlife trade, and providing information upon which to base enforcement

actions/prosecutions. However, the extent to which marking is effective in achieving such aims

depends in part on how the requirements are implemented. As a consequence of the discretion

afforded to Member States under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations in relation to implementing

national laws on this or not, there is considerable variation in the implementation of marking

requirements across the EU.

A good understanding of the different methods used and their application in the various countries

would be beneficial to CITES authorities. This is of particular relevance to enforcement authorities,

who, for example, have raised concerns in the past over difficulties in tracing specific marking

sequences to the relevant countries. As such, having a specific question in Part 2 of the new

Implementation Report on marking legislation and requirements, and the taxa and techniques these

cover, could help to fill this ongoing knowledge gap.

B9b Penalties

Question B9b of Part 2 in the current Biennial Report asks EU Member States to provide details

about maximum penalties that may be imposed for Regulation-related violations. In the current

Biennial Report format there is no specific question related to penalty levels in Part 1 and therefore

non-EU CITES Parties have not been reporting on this. The new proposed Implementation Report

includes a question requesting a summary of available penalties due to the recognised importance

of this as indicator of adequate CITES implementation. As the EU has been collating penalty

information for many years now, it would be important for the EU to share their experiences on

this, in particular in relation to the best format for reporting to ensure comparability of information

provided across Parties.

Information on penalties is regularly used to describe the level of seriousness that is attributed to

illegal wildlife trade in different countries. Penalty information provided in the EU Biennial Reports

over the last few years has been collated in a penalties table and shared with EU Member States (a

summary version of this for 2013-2014 can be found in Annex 5). As part of the EU Biennial Report

analyses, and for other reports, attempts have been made to analyse the available penalty

43

information. This has been severely hampered, however, by the incredibly variable information

available. It is often provided in different formats and maximum fines can vary greatly according to

the situation; for example, private persons versus legal entities, the different types of legislation that

may be applicable to the offence (Nature Protection Acts versus Customs or Criminal Codes) or

fines depending on many factors, including the income of the offender and conservation status of

the species.

Clear wording of the new question in the Implementation Report covering penalties is vital to its

success in collecting the information required. Furthermore it is recommended that a specific

template be provided to Parties for this question, so ensure they provide all the relevant information

required.

C20-C30

Questions C20-C30 of Part 2 in the current Biennial Report deal specifically with implementation

of Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC, or the 2007 EU Enforcement Action Plan. In

general, the most useful information provided by EU Member States under these questions were

under “comments”, i.e. additional and specific information on implementation of a specific

recommendation. Based on previous Biennial Report analyses, questions covering the following

topics provided (or had the potential to provide) the most interesting/relevant information for

analysis of enforcement activity within the EU:

C21 Access to specialised equipment/relevant expertise

C22 Penalties take into account market/conservation value

C23 Training/awareness raising for prosecution services/judiciary

C24 In-country checks/enforcement

C26/C28 Housing of specimens

These topics may be covered by the new proposed EU Action Plan and monitored via the indicators

developed under this. However, their relevance is summarised below, in case Member States may

also wish to consider their inclusion in a new Part 2 to the Implementation report.

C21 Access to specialised equipment/relevant expertise

If CITES Parties know which other Parties have specific skills or equipment available to support

enforcement activities they can consequently contact them if certain expertise is lacking in their

country and request further information and/or training. Within the EU much of this kind

information is shared through EU-TWIX. However, a request for information on specialised

equipment available to enforcement in each EU Member State, such as micro-chip readers, specialist

computer programmes and equipment for transporting live seized animals (and the possibility of

sharing/lending/training in the use of such equipment to other EU Member States in need), could be

considered for inclusion in Part 2.

C22 Penalties take into account market/conservation value

As noted under B9b, there is a question covering penalties in the new Implementation Report

format. However, this does not specifically request information on whether penalties take the

market and conservation value of the specimens/species into account. The market or conservation

values of many species are not well known. If there is a lack of awareness concerning (the often

high) profits that can be gained from illegal wildlife trade, this is likely to lead to insufficient penalties

being imposed and consequently offenders are not deterred from carrying out further wildlife trade

crimes. It is therefore important that these aspects are taken into consideration when penalties are

imposed. Specific examples of how these are taken into account in certain EU Member States can

be very helpful to other Parties wishing to change legislation to include these aspects.

44

C23 Training/awareness raising for prosecution services/judiciary

The new Implementation Report format includes a question regarding training for enforcement

officials (1.8.1.a), however there is no reference to training or awareness raising activities specifically

for prosecution services or judiciary. The low level of co-operation between the CITES authorities

and the prosecution/judiciary, and/or the awareness of the latter of CITES-related issues, has been

a concern raised by many EU Member States in the past. Information on specific training or examples

of collaborative work on wildlife trade issues with these two sectors occurring in Member States

may help to promote improvements in others and consequently lead to more penalties and

prosecutions of wildlife crime.

C24 In-country checks/enforcement

In-country checks and enforcement to support CITES implementation are particularly relevant and

important for EU Member States which share a large external border. The focus, levels and regularity

of in-country checks can vary considerably between Member States, however, and it is important to

monitor these and work towards ensuring a holistic approach is being taken to combat illegal wildlife

trade.

A number of questions covering this aspect could be considered for inclusion in Part 2 of the new

Implementation Report. These would ideally differentiate between the various receivers of these

checks (such as breeders, physical retailers, online sales and owners) and request information on

the regularity of checks, which authorities are responsible for them and what tools/experience are

available for this, such as checklists and identification skills. Where in-country checks are lacking, it

would be important to clarify why this is the case (such as current legislation preventing it, lack of identification skills or breeding facilities being un-registered) as other Parties may be able to help fill

these capacity gaps.

C26/C28 Housing of specimens

These two questions currently ask whether Member States have facilities available for the temporary

care of seized or confiscated live specimens and if mechanisms are in place for long-term housing

(C26), and if assistance is being provided to other Member States with temporary and long-term

care and housing (C28). Due to concerns over the low capacity or lack of rescue centre facilities in

some EU Member States (combined with a lack of awareness over the availability of certain facilities),

a list of rescue centres was compiled and shared on EU-TWIX for use by Member States. This list

ideally requires regular updating and a specific question in Part 2 of the Implementation Report could be used to regularly collate/amend rescue centre details provided by Member States. Alternatively,

a question specifically focusing on whether a Member State is able to provide assistance, and if so,

for which species and specimen sizes, and who to contact, could be very useful.

D2.11 SRG attendance

Question D2.11 of Part 2 in the current Biennial Report asks EU Member States to provide

information on their SRG attendance, including how many meetings they attended and if there were

any problems that prevented them from attending.

The COM and SRG meet on average four times year and the Enforcement Group twice a year.

These groups have specific functions as outlined in Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and participation by all Member States ensures a true EU-wide approach is taken in relation to all

decisions being made. It is therefore essential that Member States send at least one representative

to each of these meetings, wherever possible.

Participation is recorded by Member States at every meeting at the request of the Commission and

therefore it would not seem necessary to repeat this information again. However, specific

45

suggestions for changes in meeting format, topics for half-day sessions and working groups could be

collated through a Part 2 question focusing on these EU meetings. Information on problems with

attendance could also be requested and used to try and resolve lack of attendance in the future.

D5.15-D5.18 Registrations and licences

D5.15-5.18 of Part 2 in the current Biennial Report asks EU Member States to provide information

on registrations of persons and institutions, approvals of breeders and licensing of caviar (re-)

packaging plants, according to various Articles of Commission Regulation (EC) 865/2006. The current

wording of these questions has led to inconsistent provision of information by Member States (see

section on additional permit and registration procedures D5.15-D5.20). However, Part B could be

used to ensure updated information on these are provided on a regular basis by specifying that lists

of registrations and licences are to be submitted with each report.

General comments on Biennial Report and new Implementation Report format

In addition to the specific questions/topics and suggestions outlined above, there are a number of

more general reporting/formatting issues that should be taken into consideration when developing

new report formats, to ensure consistent reporting by all Parties and facilitate the comparative

analysis of answers.

According to the proposal for a new implementation report submitted to the Standing Committee

in November 2015:

“The [new] report format allows Parties to present information in a standard manner, so that it

can be easily collated, with three main objectives:

i) To enable monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of the Convention;

ii) To facilitate the identification of major achievements, significant developments, or trends,

gaps or problems and possible solutions; and

iii) Provide a basis for substantive and procedural decision-making by the Conference of the

Parties and various subsidiary bodies.”

Taking these objectives into consideration, and based on issues arising during previous analyses of

EU Biennial Reports and feedback from Member States on the past analyses, the following more

general aspects are considered important for successful reporting.

Guidance and definitions are vital for accurate interpretation of questions

The existing Biennial Reports contain a number of questions that are open to interpretation (see

previous Biennial Report analyses for several examples of these). This is especially problematic for

questions with only Yes/No options for answers, as additional information provided can often help

to establish how a question was interpreted. It is therefore vital that clear guidance and definitions

are provided with the new Implementation Report, preferably together with an example of a

completed report.

In cases where questions/terms appear to be similar, and could therefore result in Parties repeating

information, it is especially important that the guidance clarifies what exactly is required under each

of the relevant questions and how they differ from each other. For example in the Biennial Reports

there were questions on “electronic information systems (EIS) providing information on CITES

species… being available on the internet” (D4.3-4.5) and “government websites with information

on CITES and its requirements” (D4.9), which were difficult to differentiate. The use of the same

terms throughout is also paramount – electronic databases, operational systems and electronic data

management are all currently being used in the new Implementation Report and it is unclear if they

refer to the same or different things. The difference between oral/written advice/guidance and

46

technical assistance, and between technical assistance and training is also unclear and would need to

be clearly defined if these terms remain in the new report.

Information provided as “comments” or “details” is often incredibly/the most useful

In some cases a question requesting a simple Yes/No answer and then comments at the end may

not be the best format for collecting the actual detailed information required. In several cases such

questions could be turned around to already request details and would likely result in a higher

reporting rate.

For example, question 1.7.5.a in the new format is the same as question C2 in the current Biennial

Report and asks “Have any administrative measures… been imposed for CITES-related violations?”

and requires a Yes, No, or No information answer. It is followed by “If Yes, please indicate how

many and for what types of offences”. When looking at previous Biennial Reports submitted by

Parties there are several cases where the question was answered with a Yes, but no additional

information was provided. If the question is turned around to “How many administrative measures

have been imposed… and for what kinds of offences?” and a list of general types of offences are

provided with a space next to them for a number, this is likely to result in more specific information

being automatically provided. Further details could also be requested in Excel, as in this case it is

very useful to have the actual values of the fines imposed and not just the number. Alternatively, in

addition to providing the total number of fines, Parties could be requested to provide more detailed

information on the five highest fines imposed, for example, which would be less of a reporting

burden, but still allow for analysis of implementation and comparison across Parties.

Finally, where additional information is being requested it is vital that these are clearly highlighted.

They can easily be missed when going through the questionnaire as the question numbers are usually

associated with the initial multiple-choice question only. In some cases these may warrant a separate

question number to help ensure they are answered. For example, question 1.5.2c in the new

Implementation Report format asks “How often do you review and/or change your non-detriment

findings?” and this is followed by “Please describe the circumstances under which non-detriment

findings would be changed”. This would appear to be an important question in its own right and may

easily be missed if it is just added to the bottom of the previous one.

If negative answers are provided, explanations should be provided

In many cases, where a positive answer is provided, the Party is encouraged to provide further

details, however, when a negative answer is provided, this is rarely the case. If a positive answer to

a question indicates adequate implementation and a negative answer is provided (“No”, “Never”,

“Rarely”, “Decrease” etc.), Parties should be encouraged to provide further details as to why a

negative answer was provided (for example, due to a lack of training/skills). This information can

then be used to identify the reasons behind gaps in implementation and propose action to resolve

any problems.

Answers to a question covering several aspects cannot be easily analysed

There are questions in the current Biennial Report that have grouped together a number of different

aspects/target groups and therefore interpretation or analysis of the answers is very difficult. For

example, question D7.9 asks “Has your country provided technical or financial assistance to another

country in relation to CITES?” and very similar question to this is included in the new Implementation

Report format (3.1.2a). From this question (unless extensive details are provided after a Yes answer)

it is usually not possible to establish if this was financial or technical assistance, which are very

different kinds of support. It is important to separate these types of questions, wherever possible.

47

ANNEX 1: CITES BIENNIAL REPORT FORMAT

Part 1 - CITES Questions

Note: Part 1 is composed exclusively of the questions included in the CITES Biennial Report

format, approved at the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, October 2004.

A. General information

Party

Period covered in this report:

1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008

Details of agency preparing this report

Contributing agencies, organizations or individuals

B. Legislative and regulatory measures

1 Has information on CITES-relevant legislation already been provided

under the CITES National Legislation Project?

If yes, ignore questions 2, 3 and 4.

Yes (fully)

Yes (partly)

No

No information/unknown

2 If your country has planned, drafted or enacted any CITES-relevant legislation, please provide the following

details:

Title and date: Status:

Brief description of contents:

3 Is enacted legislation available in one of the working languages of the

Convention?

Yes

No

No information

4 If yes, please attach a copy of the full legislative text or key legislative

provisions that were gazetted.

legislation attached

provided previously

not available, will send later

5 Which of the following issues are addressed by any stricter domestic measures

that your country has adopted for CITES-listed species

(in accordance with Article XIV of the Convention)?

Tick all applicable

The conditions for: The complete prohibition of:

Issue Yes No No information Yes No No information

Trade

Taking

Possession

Transport

Other (specify)

Additional comments

48

6 What were the results of any review or assessment of the effectiveness of CITES

legislation, with regard to the following items?

Tick all applicable

Item Adequate

Partially

Inadequate Inadequate No information

Powers of CITES authorities

Clarity of legal obligations

Control over CITES trade

Consistency with existing policy on

wildlife management and use

Coverage of law for all types of

offences

Coverage of law for all types of

penalties

Implementing Regulations

Coherence within legislation

Other (please specify):

Please provide details if available:

7 If no review or assessment has taken place, is one planned for the next

reporting period?

Yes

No

No information

Please provide details if available:

8 Has there been any review of legislation on the following subjects in

relation to implementation of the Convention?

Tick all applicable

Subject Yes No No information

Access to or ownership of natural resources

Harvesting

Transporting of live specimens

Handling and housing of live specimens

Please provide details if available:

9 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

C. Compliance and enforcement measures

Yes No

No

information

1 Have any of the following compliance monitoring operations been undertaken?

Review of reports and other information provided by traders and

producers:

Inspections of traders, producers, markets

Border controls

Other (specify)

2 Have any administrative measures (e.g., fines, bans, suspensions)

been imposed for CITES-related violations?

3 If Yes, please indicate how many and for what types of violations? If available, please attach details as

Annex.

4 Have any significant seizures, confiscations and forfeitures of CITES

specimens been made?

49

5 If information available:

Significant seizures/confiscations

Total seizures/confiscations

If possible, please specify per group of species or attach details on

annex.

Number

6 Have there been any criminal prosecutions of significant CITES-

related violations?

7 If Yes, how many and for what types of violations? If available, please attach details as Annex.

8 Have there been any other court actions of CITES-related

violations?

9 If Yes, what were the violations involved and what were the results? Please attach details as Annex.

10 How were the confiscated specimens generally disposed of? Tick if applicable

– Return to country of export

– Public zoos or botanical gardens

– Designated rescue centres

– Approved, private facilities

– Euthanasia

– Other (specify)

Comments:

11 Has your country provided to the Secretariat detailed information on

significant cases of illegal trade (e.g. through an ECOMESSAGE or other

means), or information on convicted illegal traders and persistent offenders?

Yes

No

Not applicable

No information

Comments:

12 Has your country been involved in cooperative enforcement activities with

other countries

(e.g. exchange of intelligence, technical support, investigative assistance, joint

operation, etc.)?

Yes

No

No information

13 If Yes, please give a brief description:

14 Has your country offered any incentives to local communities to assist in the

enforcement of CITES legislation, e.g. leading to the arrest and conviction of

offenders?

Yes

No

No information

15 If Yes, please describe:

16 Has there been any review or assessment of CITES-related enforcement? Yes

No

Not applicable

No information

Comments:

17 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

50

D. Administrative measures

D1 Management Authority (MA)

1 Have there been any changes in the designation of or contact information

for the MA(s) in your country which are not yet reflected in the CITES

Directory?

Yes

No

No information

2 If Yes, please use the opportunity to provide those changes here.

3 If there is more than one MA in your country, has a lead MA been

designated?

Yes

No

No information

4 If Yes, please name that MA and indicate whether it is identified as the lead MA in the CITES Directory.

5 How many staff work in each MA?

6 Can you estimate the percentage of time they spend on CITES related

matters?

If yes, please give estimation

Yes

No

No information

7 What are the skills/expertise of staff within the MA(s)? Tick if applicable

– Administration

– Biology

– Economics/trade

– Law/policy

– Other (specify)

– No information

8 Have the MA(s) undertaken or supported any research activities in relation

to CITES species or technical issues (e.g. labelling, tagging, species

identification) not covered in D2(8) and D2(9)?

Yes

No

No information

9 If Yes, please give the species name and provide details of the kind of research involved.

10 Please provide details of any additional measures taken

51

D2 Scientific Authority (SA)

1 Have there been any changes in the designation of or contact information

for the SA(s) in your country which are not yet reflected in the CITES

Directory?

Yes

No

No information

2 If Yes, please use the opportunity to provide those changes here.

3 Has your country designated a Scientific Authority independent from the

Management Authority?

Yes

No

No information

4 What is the structure of the SA(s) in your country? Tick if applicable

– Government institution

– Academic or research institution

– Permanent committee

– Pool of individuals with certain expertise

– Other (specify)

5 How many staff work in each SA on CITES issues?

6 Can you estimate the percentage of time they spend on CITES related

matters?

If yes, please give estimation

Yes

No

No information

7 What are the skills/expertise of staff within the SA(s)? Tick if applicable

– Botany

– Ecology

– Fisheries

– Forestry

– Welfare

– Zoology

– Other (specify)

– No information

8 Have any research activities been undertaken by the SA(s) in relation to

CITES species?

Yes

No

No information

9 If Yes, please give the species name and provide details of the kind of research involved.

Species name Populations Distribution

Off

take

Legal trade Illegal trade

Other

(specify)

1

2

3

etc.

No information

10 Have any project proposals for scientific research been submitted to the

Secretariat under Resolution Conf. 12.2?

Yes

No

No information

11 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

52

D3 Enforcement Authorities

1 To date, has your country advised the Secretariat of any enforcement

authorities that have been designated for the receipt of confidential

enforcement information related to CITES?

Yes

No

No information

2 If No, please designate them here (with address, phone, fax and email).

3 Has your country established a specialized unit responsible for CITES-

related enforcement (e.g. within the wildlife department, Customs, the

police, public prosecutor’s office)?

Yes

No

Under consideration

No information

4 If Yes, please state which is the lead agency for enforcement:

5 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

D4 Communication, information management and exchange

1 To what extent is CITES information in your country computerized? Tick if applicable

– Monitoring and reporting of data on legal trade

– Monitoring and reporting of data on illegal trade

– Permit issuance

– Not at all

– Other (specify)

2 Do the following authorities have access to the Internet? Tick if applicable

Authority

Yes,

continuous

and

unre

stri

cted a

ccess

Yes,

but

only

thro

ugh

a

dia

l-up c

onnect

ion

Yes,

but

only

thro

ugh

a

diffe

rent

offic

e

Som

e o

ffic

es

only

Not

at a

ll

Please provide details where

appropriate

Management

Authority

Scientific Authority

Enforcement

Authority

3 Do you have an electronic information system providing information on CITES

species?

Yes

No

No information

53

4 If Yes, does it provide information on: Tick if applicable

– Legislation (national, regional or international)?

– Conservation status (national, regional, international)?

– Other (please specify)?

5 Is it available through the Internet:

Yes

No

Not applicable

No information

Please provide URL:

6 Do the following authorities have access to the following publications? Tick if applicable

Publication

Management

Authority

Scientific

Authority

Enforcement

Authority

2003 Checklist of CITES Species (book)

2003 Checklist of CITES Species and Annotated

Appendices (CD-ROM)

Identification Manual

CITES Handbook

7 If not, what problems have been encountered to access to the mentioned information?

8 Have enforcement authorities reported to the Management Authority on: Tick if applicable

– Mortality in transport?

– Seizures and confiscations?

– Discrepancy in number of items in permit and number of items actually

traded?

Comments:

9 Is there a government website with information on CITES and its

requirements?

Yes

No

No information

If Yes, please give the URL:

10 Have CITES authorities been involved in any of the following activities to

bring about better accessibility to and understanding of the Convention’s

requirements to the wider public?

Tick if applicable

– Press releases/conferences

– Newspaper articles, radio/television appearances

– Brochures, leaflets

– Presentations

– Displays

– Information at border crossing points

– Telephone hotline

– Other (specify)

Please attach copies of any items as Annex.

11 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

54

D5 Permitting and registration procedures

1 Have any changes in permit format or the designation and signatures of officials

empowered to sign CITES permits/certificates been reported previously to the

Secretariat?

If no, please provide details of any:

Yes

No

Not applicable

No information

Changes in permit format:

Changes in designation or signatures of relevant officials:

2 To date, has your country developed written permit procedures for any of the

following?

Tick if applicable

Yes No No information

Permit issuance/acceptance

Registration of traders

Registration of producers

3 Please indicate how many CITES documents were issued or denied in the two year period?

(Note that actual trade is normally reported in the Annual Report by Parties. This question refers to issued

documents).

Year 1 Import or

introduction

from the sea

Export Re-

export Other

Comments

How many documents were

issued?

How many applications were

denied because of severe

ommissions or mis-

information?

Year 2

How many documents were

issued?

How many applications were

denied because of severe

ommissions or mis-

information?

4 Were any CITES documents that were issued later cancelled and replaced

because of severe ommissions or mis-information?

Yes

No

No information

5 If Yes, please give the reasons for this.

6 Please give the reasons for rejection of CITES documents from other countries. Tick if applicable

Reason Yes No No information

Technical violations

Suspected fraud

Insufficient basis for finding of non-detriment

Insufficient basis for finding of legal acquisition

Other (specify)

7 Are harvest and/or export quotas as a management tool in the procedure for

issuance of permits?

Yes

No

No information

Comments

8 How many times has the Scientific Authority been requested to provide opinions?

9 Has the Management Authority charged fees for permit issuance, registration or

related CITES activities?

Tick if applicable

– Issuance of CITES documents:

– Licensing or registration of operations that produce CITES species:

55

– Harvesting of CITES-listed species :

– Use of CITES-listed species:

– Assignment of quotas for CITES-listed species:

– Importing of CITES-listed species:

– Other (specify):

10 If Yes, please provide the amounts of such fees.

11 Have revenues from fees been used for the implementation of CITES or

wildlife conservation?

Tick if applicable

– Entirely:

– Partly:

– Not at all:

– Not relevant:

Comments:

12 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

D6 Capacity building

1 Have any of the following activities been undertaken to enhance effectiveness of

CITES implementation at the national level?

Tick if applicable

Increased budget for activities Improvement of national

networks

Hiring of more staff Purchase of technical equipment for

monitoring/enforcement

Development of implementation tools Computerisation

– Other (specify)

2 Have the CITES authorities in your country been the recipient of any of the following capacity building

activities provided by external sources?

Please tick boxes to indicate which

target group and which activity.

Target group Ora

l or

wri

tten

advi

ce/g

uid

ance

Tech

nic

al

assi

stan

ce

Fin

anci

al

assi

stan

ce

Tra

inin

g

Oth

er

(speci

fy)

What were the external

sources?

Staff of Management Authority

Staff of Scientific Authority

Staff of enforcement authorities

Traders

NGOs

Public

Other (specify)

56

3 Have the CITES authorities in your country been the providers of any of the following capacity building

activities?

Please tick boxes to indicate which

target group and which activity.

Target group Ora

l or

wri

tten

advi

ce/g

uid

ance

Tech

nic

al

assi

stan

ce

Fin

anci

al

assi

stan

ce

Tra

inin

g

Oth

er

(speci

fy)

Details

Staff of Management Authority

Staff of Scientific Authority

Staff of enforcement authorities

Traders

NGOs

Public

Other parties/International meetings

Other (specify)

4 Please provide details of any additional measures taken

D7 Collaboration/co-operative initiatives

1 Is there an inter-agency or inter-sectoral committee on CITES? Yes

No

No information

2 If Yes, which agencies are represented and how often does it meet?

3 If No, please indicated the frequency of meetings or consultancies used by the MA to ensure co-ordination

among CITES authorities (e.g. other MAs, SA(s), Customs, police, others):

Daily Weekl

y

Monthly Annually None No

informatio

n

Other (specify)

Meetings

Consultations

4 At the national level have there been any efforts to

collaborate with:

Tick if applicable Details if available

Agencies for development and trade

Provincial, state or territorial authorities

Local authorities or communities

Indigenous peoples

Trade or other private sector associations

NGOs

Other (specify)

57

5 To date, have any Memoranda of Understanding or other

formal arrangements for institutional cooperation related

to CITES been agreed between the MA and the following

agencies?

Tick if applicable

SA

Customs

Police

Other border authorities (specify)

Other government agencies

Private sector bodies

NGOs

Other (specify)

6 Has your country participated in any regional activities

related to CITES?

Tick if applicable

Workshops

Meetings

Other (specify)

7 Has your country encouraged any non-Party to accede to

the Convention?

Yes

No

No information

8 If Yes, which one(s) and in what way?

9 Has your country provided technical or financial assistance to another

country in relation to CITES?

Yes

No

No information

10 If Yes, which country(ies) and what kind of assistance was provided?

11 Has your country provided any data for inclusion in the CITES Identification

Manual?

Yes

No

No information

12 If Yes, please give a brief description.

13 Has your country taken measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce

duplication of activities between the national authorities for CITES and

other multilateral environmental agreements (e.g. the biodiversity-related

Conventions)?

Yes

No

No information

14 If Yes, please give a brief description.

15 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

58

D8 Areas for future work

1 Are any of the following activities needed to enhance effectiveness of CITES implementation at the national

level and what is the respective level of priority?

Activity High Medium Low

Increased budget for activities

Hiring of more staff

Development of implementation tools

Improvement of national networks

Purchase of new technical equipment for monitoring and enforcement

Computerisation

Other (specify)

2 Has your country encountered any difficulties in implementing specific

Resolutions or Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties?

Yes

No

No information

3 If Yes, which one(s) and what is the main difficulty?

4 Have any constraints to implementation of the Convention arisen in your

country requiring attention or assistance?

Yes

No

No information

5 If Yes, please describe the constraint and the type of attention or assistance that is required.

6 Has your country identified any measures, procedures or mechanisms within the

Convention that would benefit from review and/or simplification?

Yes

No

No information

7 If Yes, please give a brief description.

8 Please provide details of any additional measures taken:

E. General feedback

Please provide any additional comments you would like to make, including comments on this format.

Thank you for completing the form. Please remember to include relevant attachments, referred to in the report. For

convenience these are listed again below:

Question Item

B4 Copy of full text of CITES-relevant legislation Enclosed

Not available

Not relevant

C3 Details of violations and administrative measures imposed Enclosed

Not available

Not relevant

C5 Details of specimens seized, confiscated or forfeited Enclosed

Not available

Not relevant

C7 Details of violations and results of prosecutions Enclosed

Not available

Not relevant

C9 Details of violations and results of court actions Enclosed

Not available

Not relevant

D4 (10) Details of nationally produced brochures or leaflets on CITES produced for

educational or public awareness purposes,

Comments

Enclosed

Not available

Not relevant

59

Part 2 - Supplementary Questions13 Note: Questions in Part 2 are additional to those in Part 1, and relate to information on the provisions of

the EC Regulations (Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006) that fall outside the

scope of CITES.

Please be aware that questions in Part 2 have been updated since the last reporting period, and this new

version should be used when submitting Biennial Reports.

The numbering of this section reflects that in Part 1, with the addition of (b) to distinguish the two. New

questions that do not correspond to questions in Part 1 are marked "new". Unless otherwise stated, the

legislation referred to below is Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97.

B. Legislative and regulatory measures

1b If not already provided under questions B (2) and B (4), please provide details of any national legislation that

has been updated in this reporting period and attach the full legislative text.

2b If your country has planned, drafted or enacted any additional Regulation -relevant legislation, other than

that reported under question B (2) or above, please provide the following details:

Title and date: Status:

Brief description of contents:

5b Has your country adopted any stricter domestic measures, other than those reported under question B(5),

specifically for non CITES-listed species14?

Tick all applicable categories below that these categories apply to.

The conditions for: The complete prohibition of:

Issue Yes No No information Yes No No information

Trade

Taking

Possession

Transport

Other (specify)

Additional comments

8b Has there been any review of legislation on the following subjects in

relation to implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97?

Yes No No information

Introduction of live Regulation-listed species into the

Community that would threaten the indigenous fauna and flora

(in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2 (d)).

Marking specimens to facilitate identification (in accordance with

Article 19, paragraph 1 (iii))..

Please provide details if available:

9b Please provide the following details about Regulations-related violations:

i) Maximum penalties that may be imposed;

ii) Or any other additional measures taken in relation to implementation of the Regulation not

reported on in question B (9).

13 As agreed at COM45 14 In this questionnaire, "non CITES-listed species" refers to species that are listed in the Regulation Annexes, but not in the CITES Appendices. They include some species in Annexes A and B and all those in Annex D.

60

C. Compliance and enforcement measures

2b Have any actions, in addition to those reported in C (2-9) above, been

taken for Regulation-related violations?

Yes

No

No information

9b Please provide the following details about Regulations-related violations:

i) Maximum sanctions which have been imposed over this reporting period;

ii) The outcomes of any prosecutions;

16b Has there been any review or assessment of Regulation-related

enforcement, in addition to that reported under C (16) above?

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

18

new

Have specimens been marked to establish whether they were born and

bred in captivity? (In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No.

865/2006, Article 66)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

19

new

Have any monitoring activities been undertaken to ensure that the

intended accommodation for a live specimen at the place of destination is

adequately equipped to conserve and care for it properly? (In accordance

with Article 4 paragraph 1 (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97).

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

20

new

Have national action plans for co-ordination of enforcement, with clearly

defined objectives and timeframes been adopted, and are they harmonized

and reviewed on a regular basis? (In accordance with Commission

Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph IIa.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

21

new

Do enforcement authorities have access to specialized equipment and

relevant expertise, and other financial and personnel resources? (In

accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph

IIb.)

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

22

new

Do penalties take into account inter alia the market value of the specimens

and the conservation value of the species involved in the offence, and the

costs incurred? (In accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007)

2551, paragraph IIc.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

61

23

new

Are training and/or awareness raising activities being carried out for a)

enforcement agencies, b) prosecution services, and c) the judiciary? (In

accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph

IId.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

24

new

Are regular checks on traders and holders such as pet shops, breeders and

nurseries being undertaken to ensure in-country enforcement? (In

accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph

IIg.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

25

new

Are risk and intelligence assessment being used systematically in order to

ensure thorough checks at border-crossing points as well as in-country?

(In accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph

IIh.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

26

new

Are facilities available for the temporary care of seized or confiscated live

specimens, and are mechanisms in place for their long-term re-homing,

where necessary? (In accordance with Commission Recommendation C

(2007) 2551, paragraph Iii.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

27

new

Is cooperation taking place with relevant enforcement agencies in other

Member States on investigations of offences under Regulation No. (EC)

338/97? (In accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551,

paragraph IIIe.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

28

new

Is assistance being provided to other Member States with the temporary

care and long-term re-homing of seized or confiscated live specimens? (In

accordance with Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph

IIIj.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

29

new

Is liaison taking place with CITES MAs and law enforcement agencies in

source, transit and consumer countries outside of the Community as well

as the CITES Secretariat, ICPO, Interpol and the World Customs

Organization to help detect, deter and prevent illegal trade in wildlife

through the exchange of information and intelligence? (In accordance with

Commission Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph IIIk.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

30

new

Is advice and support being provided to CITES MAs and law enforcement

agencies in source, transit and consumer countries outside of the

Community to facilitate legal and sustainable trade through correct

application of procedures? (In accordance with Commission

Recommendation C (2007) 2551, paragraph IIIl.)

Yes

No

No information

Comments:

62

D. Administrative measures

D1 Management Authority (MA)

8b Have the MA(s) undertaken or supported any research activities in relation

to non CITES-listed species or technical issues (e.g. species identification) not

covered in D2 (8) and D2 (9)?

Yes

No

No information

11

new

Has the Commission and the CITES Secretariat (if relevant) been informed of

the outcomes of any investigations that the Commission has considered it

necessary be made? (In accordance with Article 14 paragraph 2 of Council

Regulation (EC) No. 338/97)?

Yes

No

No information

D2 Scientific Authority (SA)

8b Have any research activities been undertaken by the SA(s) in relation to

non CITES listed species?

Yes

No

No information

9b If Yes, please give the species name and provide details of the kind of research involved.

Species name Populations Distribution

Off

take

Legal trade Illegal trade

Other

(specify)

1

2

3

etc.

No information

D3 Enforcement Authorities

6

new

Has a liaison officer/focal point for CITES been nominated within each relevant enforcement authority in

your country? Yes

No

Under

consideration

No information

D4 Communication, information management and exchange

1b Is Regulation-related information in your country computerized on? Tick if applicable

– Annex D listed species

– Other matters not reported on in question D4 (1) (please specify)

3b Do you have an electronic information system providing information on

Regulation-listed species?

Yes

No

No information

11

new

How many Scientific Review Group (SRG) meetings have the SA attended? Number

Indicate any difficulties that rendered attendance to the SRG difficult:

63

D5 Permitting and registration procedures

9b Has the Management Authority charged fees for any Regulation-related matters

not covered in question D5 (9)?

If yes, please provide details of these Regulation-related matters and the amount

of any such fees.

Yes

No

No information

13

new

Can you indicate the percentage of permits/certificates issued that are returned

to the MA after endorsement by customs? Percentage : ….%

No information

14

new

Has a list of places of introduction and export in your country been compiled in

accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97?

If yes, please attach.

Yes

No

No information

15

new

Have persons and bodies been registered in accordance with Articles 18 and 19

of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006?

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

16

new

Have scientific institutions been registered in accordance with Article 60 of

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006?

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

17

new

Have breeders been approved in accordance with Article 63 of Commission

Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006?

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

18

new

Have caviar (re-)packaging plants been licensed in accordance with Article 66 (7)

of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006?

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

19

new

Are phytosanitary certificates used in accordance with Article 17 of Commission

Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006?

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

20

new

Have cases occurred where export permits and re-export certificates were

issued retrospectively in accordance with Article 15 of Commission Regulation

(EC) No. 865/2006?

If yes, please provide details.

Yes

No

No information

D8 Areas for future work

2b Has your country encountered any difficulties in implementing specific

suspensions or negative opinions adopted by the European Commission? (In

accordance with Article 4 (6)).

Yes

No

No information

4b Have any constraints to implementation of the Regulation, not reported under

question D8 (4) , arisen in your country requiring attention or assistance?

Yes

No

No information

64

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT TABLE

No. Questions AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

B1 Information on CITES-relevant legislation provided under the CITES

National Legislation Project

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y P Y Y Y P

B2/B2b NEW CITES/additional Regulation relevant

legislation planned, drafted or enacted

Y N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y

B5 Stricter domestic measures adopted for CITES-listed species

N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

B5b Stricter domestic measures

adopted for non CITES-listed species

N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N O Y O O Y N N N Y Y O O Y N N Y N

B6 Review of legislation - effectiveness of CITES (results provided)

N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

B7 Review planned for next period

Y Y O N O Y N O O N O O N N N O O Y O Y N Y O O Y O O N

B8/8b Review of legislation - implementation of CITES/Regulations (carried

out)

N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N Y N

B9b Information on Regulation-related violations provided

(maximum penalties and other

measures)

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y

C1 Compliance and monitoring

operations undertaken Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

C2 Administrative measures

for CITES-related violations imposed

Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y

C4 Significant seizures,

confiscation and forfeitures made

Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

C6 Criminal prosecutions of

significant CITES-related violations undertaken

Y Y N O Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

C8 Other court actions of CITES-related violations

undertaken

O Y O O Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y O Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y N O Y

C11 Detailed information on significant cases of illegal trade, convicted traders

and/or persistent offenders provided to Secretariat

Y Y O O Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N O N N O N Y Y N Y N N N N Y

C12 Involved in cooperative

enforcement activities with other countries

O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

65

No. Questions AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

C14 Offered incentives to local communities to assist in

enforcement

N N N N N O N N N N N O N N N Y N N N N N N N N O N N Y

C16 Review of assessment of CITES-related enforcement

N Y O N N Y N N Y N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y Y Y O N Y Y Y

C18 Captive-bred specimens marked (Art. 66)

Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y

C19 Intended accommodation for live specimens (Art. 4) monitored

Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

C20 National action plans for coordination of enforcement adopted

N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N N N Y Y

C21 Enforcement authorities have

access to specialised equipment, expertise and resources

Y Y Y N Y Y N Y O Y Y Y N Y O Y O N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

C22 Penalties take into account market and conservation value

of species and costs incurred

Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y N Y

C23 Training and awareness activities carried out for

enforcement agencies, prosecution services and judiciary

Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y O Y N Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y

C24 Regular checks on traders and holders undertaken in-country

N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

C25 Risk and intelligence assessment used to ensure thorough checks

at borders and in-country

Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y

C26 Facilities available for temporary care of seized/confiscated live specimens and mechanisms in

place for long-term re-homing

Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

C27 Cooperation with enforcement agencies in other MS on

investigations of offences (IIIe)

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

C28 Assistance provided to other MS with temporary/long-term

housing of seized live specimens (IIIj)

N O N N N Y N N Y N N N Y N O N O N N N Y N N N Y N N N

C29 Liaison with non-EU authorities in source, transit and consumer

countries and IGOs to help detect, deter and prevent illegal

trade

N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N O N Y Y O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

C30 Advice and support provided to

non-EU authorities in source, transit and consumer countries on correct application of

procedures

N N O Y N Y O Y Y Y Y O Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N O O

66

No. Questions AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

D1.8/1.8b MA undertaken/supported research on CITES or non-

CITES species or technical issues

Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N N Y Y N N N N Y Y N N Y N N

D1.11 EC and CITES Sec been

informed of outcomes of investigations EC considered necessary be made (Art. 14)

N O O N O Y O N O N O N Y N O N N O O N Y N Y O Y O N Y

D2.3 SA independent from MA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D2.8/2.8b SA undertaken research on

CITES or non-CITES species N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y

D2.10 Project proposals for

scientific research

submitted to CITES Sec (Res. Conf. 12.2)

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N O N N N N

D3.1 Secretariat informed of enforcement authorities designated for receipt of

confidential CITES information

Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D3.3 Specialist unit for CITES-

related enforcement established

Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D3.6 CITES liaison officer/focal point

nominated in each enforcement authority

Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U Y Y Y Y

D4.1 CITES-related information

computerised Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D4.1b Regulation-related information

computerised (Annex D species and other)

Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

D4.2 All authorities have

continuous and unrestricted access to Internet

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

D4.3 Electronic information system (EIS) providing information on CITES species available

N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D4.3b Electronic information system providing information on

Regulation-listed species

Y Y N Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

D4.6 All authorities have access

to Checklist of CITES

species (book or CD), Identification manual and Handbook

Y N N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D4.8 Enforcement authorities reporting to MA on various issues

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

67

No. Questions AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

D4.9 Government website with CITES and its requirements

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D4.10 CITES authorities involved

in public awareness activities

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D5.2 Developed written permit

procedures N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

D5.4 CITES documents issued

later cancelled and replaced because of severe omissions or misinformation

N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N Y N

D5.7 Harvest and/or export quotas used as management tool for

permit issuance

N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y

D5.9 MA charged fees for CITES/Regulation-related

matters/listed species

Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D5.11 Revenues from fees used for implementation of

CITES/conservation

N Y N O P N O Y N P N O N N O P N O N O Y O P O N P P Y

D5.14 List of places of introduction

and export compiled (Art. 12) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D5.15 Persons and bodies registered (Art. 18/19)

N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N O N N N N Y N N N N Y

D5.16 Scientific institutions registered (Art. 60)

Y N N N N N Y N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N Y

D5.17 Breeders approved (Art. 63) N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y

D5.18 Caviar (re-)packaging plants

licensed (Art. 66(7)) Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N N Y N

D5.19 Phytosanitary certificates used (Art. 17)

Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N O N O N N Y N N N N Y N N

D5.20 Export permits and re-export certificates issued retrospectively (Art.15)

N N N N N Y N N N Y N Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N

D6.1 Selected activities undertaken to enhance

effectiveness of CITES implementation

Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y

D6.2 CITES authorities been

recipients of capacity building activities

N Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D6.3 CITES authorities been

providers of capacity building activities

Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

D7.1 National inter-agency or inter-sectoral committee on CITES established

Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y

68

No. Questions AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

D7.4 Efforts to collaborate with other agencies/authorities/persons

Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

D7.5 Formal agreements (MoUs) for co-operation between MA and other agencies

N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Y

D7.6 Participated in regional activities related to CITES

N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

D7.7 Encouraged non-Party to accede to CITES

N N N N O N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N O N N N N N

D7.9 Provided technical or

financial assistance to other countries

N N N N N Y N Y N Y Y N N N N N O N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y

D7.13 Taken measures to achieve

coordination and reduce duplication between CITES and other MEAs

N Y N N Y O Y Y O Y Y O Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y O O Y N Y

D8.2 Encountered difficulties in implementing Resolutions/Decisions

N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N

D8.2b Encountered difficulties in implementing suspensions or

negative opinions

N Y O N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

D8.4 Constraints to implementation of CITES

arisen that require assistance

Y N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y Y N N N O N N N

D8.4b Constraints to implementation

of Regulation arisen that require assistance

N N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N

D8.6 Identified CITES measures that would benefit from review

N N O N N N N N O Y N Y N Y O N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N

Y – Yes N - No

O – No information/not relevant

P – Partially/partly

U – Underway/under consideration

Different answer from 2011-2012

69

ANNEX 3: ADDITIONAL SUMMARY TABLES

No. Questions Options AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Totals

B6 Results of

review of

legislation -

effectiveness of

CITES

Powers of CITES

authorities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 16.5

Clarity of legal obligations

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 16.0

Control over CITES

trade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 16.0

Consistency with existing

policy on wildlife

management and use

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14.5

Coverage of law for all

types of offences 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14.5

Coverage of law for all

types of penalties 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 14.5

Implementing Regulations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 15.5

Coherence within

legislation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14.0

Other 1 1

B8/8b Review of

legislation -

implementation

of CITES

Access to or ownership

of natural resources 1 1 2

Harvesting 1 1 2

Transporting of live

specimens 1 1

Handling and housing of

live specimens 1 1 2

Introduction of species

that would threaten

indigenous fauna/flora 1 1 1 1 4

Marking of specimens 1 1 2

C1 Compliance

and monitoring

operations

undertaken

Review of reports and

other info provided by

traders/producers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15

Inspection of traders,

producers, markets 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

Border Controls 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

C10 Methods used

to dispose of

confiscated

specimens

Return to country of

export 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Public zoos or botanical

gardens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

Designated rescue

centres 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18

Approved private facilities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

Euthanasia 1 1 1 1 4

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19

70

No. Questions Options AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Totals

D1.5 No. of staff

working in MA

9 8 5 3 5< 28 11 1 16 30 6< 36< 2 4 3 250

<

2 1 4 5 163 5 11 2 5 2 5 27

D1.6 % of time MA

staff spend on

CITES-related

matters

50-

100

100 60 30-

100

35 30 10-

90

≤

100

10-

90

56 60 10-

100

10-

100

70-

100

50 10 15-

60

30-

100

0.3-

100

100 10-

90

10-

90

60 25-

75

50-

100

50-

90

D1.7 Skills/expertise

of MA staff

Administration 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

Biology 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25

Economics/trade 1 1 1 3

Law/policy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

D2.4 Structure of SA Government institution 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15

Academic/research

institution 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10

Permanent committee 1 1 1 1 4

Pool of individuals with

expertise 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8

D2.5 No. of staff

working in SA

10 23 4< 4< 8 1 10< 3 3 2 1< 1 6 2< 3 10< 5 2< 33 4 1 3 10

D2.6 % of time SA

staff spend on

CITES-related

matters

50 1-70 100 60 5 5-10 10-

80

25 20 20-

30

15 5-10 2> 20 5-20 10-

30

30 100 ~60

D2.7 Skills/expertise

of SA staff

Botany 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

Ecology 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25

Fisheries 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Forestry 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Welfare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Zoology 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

D2.11 Number of SRG

meetings

attended

8 8 0 <2 8 8 7 4 0 6 8 8 8 8 5 8 1 3 0 0 7 8 8 0 7 8

D4.1 CITES

Information

computerised

Monitoring and reporting

of data on legal trade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

Monitoring and reporting

of data on illegal trade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

Permit issuance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

71

No. Questions Options AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Totals

D4.4 EIS provides

information on

Legislation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24

Conservation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

D4.8 Enforcement

authorities

reporting to

MA on 3 issues

Mortality in transport 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Seizures and confiscations

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28

Permit discrepancies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15

D4.1

0

CITES

authorities

involved in

public

awareness

activities

Press

releases/conferences 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

Newspaper articles,

radio/TV appearances 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23

Brochures, leaflets 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21

Presentations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21

Displays 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

Information at border

crossing points 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

Telephone hotline 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

D5.2 Developed

written permit

procedures

Permit

issuance/acceptance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

Registration of traders 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18

Registration of producers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16

D5.6 Reasons for

rejection of

CITES

documents

from other

countries

Technical violations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

Suspected fraud 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Insufficient basis for

finding of non-detriment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Insufficient basis for

finding of legal acquisition 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

D5.9 MA charged

fees for CITES-

related

matters/listed

species

Issuance of CITES

documents 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

Licensing or registration

of operations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Harvesting 1 1 2

Use 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Assignment of quotas 0

Importing 1 1 1 1 1 5

Other

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

72

No. Questions Options AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Totals

D5.13 Percentage of

permits/

certificates

returned to MA

90 85 95 90 95 100 85 95 87 92 94.5 ~69 70 85.1 99 99 100 70 ~95 90 80 80 85 ~90 65

D6.1 Activities to

enhance

effectiveness of

CITES

implementation

Increased budget for

activities 1 1

Hiring of more staff 1 1 2

Development of

implementation tools 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

Improvement of national

networks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

Purchase of technical

equipment for

monitoring/enforcement 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Computerisation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

D7.4 Effort to

collaborate

with other

agencies/

authorities/

persons

Agencies for development

and trade 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Provincial, state or

territorial authorities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18

Local authorities or

communities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Indigenous peoples 0

Trade or other private

sector associations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21

NGOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19

Other 1 1 1 3

D7.5 Formal

agreements

(MoUs) for co-

operation

between MA

and other

agencies

SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

Customs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16

Police 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Other border authorities 1 1

Other government

agencies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Private sector bodies 0

NGOs 1 1

Other 1 1 1 3

1 - yes

0.5 - partial

* - under preparation

Different answer from 2011-2012

73

ANNEX 4: STRICTER DOMESTIC MEASURES

EU

MS

Stricter

conditions

Further information on key measures

Related legislation

AT No stricter domestic measures

BE Trade Possession Transport

Traders selling specimens of species listed in Annexes A and B to the EU Regulations are required to keep a record of their acquisitions and sales. Exemptions apply for certain categories of specimens.

The possession of specimens of species listed in CITES Appendix I is prohibited. Exemptions apply for persons and legal entities keeping live Annex A specimens, for which they have provided an inventory, according to the regulation.

Commission guidelines on prohibition of certificates for intra EU-trade, export permits or re-export permits for rhino horns are followed.

Marking regulations for living vertebrates listed in Annex A of EU Regulation 338/97 are followed, including marking of infant tortoises (Testudo hermanni, T. graeca and T. marginata) with a plastron size >4.5cm by microchip transponders.

Law implementing CITES (28/07/1981– Article 4)

Royal Decree (09/04/2003 – Article 2) Royal Decree (16/07/09) – (in force since

01/10/09) Law implementing EU Regulation No 865/06 –

Article 66

BG Trade Taking Possession Transport

Trade of unregistered specimens of vertebrates (excluding fish) offered as food and small leather products, and the trade in specimens with unknown origin is prohibited.

The trade and possession of wild caught specimens of protected species (live or dead) is prohibited The trade and keeping of live wild felines and primates outside of zoos and rescue centres is prohibited. Complete prohibition of protected species deliberately extracted from the wild.

Animal Protection Act (SG No. 13/2008)

CY No stricter domestic measures

CZ Trade Taking Possession Transport

Most CITES-listed species which are indigenous to the Czech Republic are strictly protected. Taking from the wild, trade and possession are prohibited. Exemptions apply only under strict conditions, i.e. for captive-bred animals or artificially propagated plants.

Live specimens of selected exotic species of mammals, birds and reptiles listed in CITES Appendix I and II must be registered by State Authorities.

Czech National Council Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on Protection of Nature and the Landscape

Act No. 346/2009 Coll. on Protection of Nature and the Landscape (amending Act No. 100/2004 Coll.), known as the Act on trade in endangered species (in force since 01/01/10)

Implementing Decree No. 210/2010 Coll. (in force since 10/07/10)

DE

Trade Taking Possession Transport

For CITES-listed species stricter domestic measures refer to taking, possession and other restrictions. The possession, acquisition, handling and processing of specially protected species (those listed in Annexes A and B to

Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Annex IV to the Habitats Directive, all European bird species protected under the Birds Directive, endangered native species, and species listed in the Berne Convention) is prohibited. The national marketing of other protected species not covered by the EU Regulations is also banned. Exemptions from the prohibitions on possession and national marketing apply if certain conditions are met. Prohibitions also apply to skins of certain seal pups (species to which Directive 83/129/EEC applies).

Records must be kept of the acquisition, handling, processing or circulation of animals or plants of specially protected species for commercial purposes (subject to exemptions granted by the competent authority, provided adequate monitoring is ensured by other means).

The keeping of vertebrates (other than those usually only found in trade as captive-bred specimens) of specially protected species must be notified to the competent “Länder” authority.

The keeping of certain indigenous birds of prey of species is prohibited (subject to limited exceptions). Prohibitions also apply to the keeping, breeding and free flying of certain hybrids of birds of prey (derogations may apply).

Revised version of the Federal Nature Conservation Act – Art. 40, 44, 46, 54 (in force since 01/03/10)

Federal Game Protection Ordinance – Art. 3 Federal Ordinance on the Conservation of

Species – Art. 3, 6, 7, 8 ff., 12 ff., Annex 1

74

EU

MS

Stricter

conditions

Further information on key measures

Related legislation

DE cont.

The keeping of wild species in animal parks may in certain circumstances require a permit. Permission may also be required for the keeping of certain dangerous (especially venomous) animal species.

The keeping of vertebrates belonging to specially protected species is only permitted if the keeper is able to keep them in proper and safe conditions.

The possession and national marketing of live specimens of certain invasive species, as well as the breeding of those species, is prohibited (subject to limited exemptions).

Marking obligations apply to mammal, bird and reptile species listed in Annex 6 of the Federal Ordinance on Species Conservation, which includes certain Annex B species. Animals must be marked from the start of keeping.

The removal and disturbance of all native wild species is prohibited. Anyone in possession of live or dead specimens of protected animal or plant species, or of their parts or derivatives, is

required to provide evidence of legal acquisition.

DK Trade Taking Possession Transport

NA

EE Possession Keeping of specimens of the Hominoidea family is completely prohibited (except for zoos) Ministerial Regulation no. 29 (12.04.2007)

EL Trade Taking Possession

Endangered species of indigenous flora and endemic, migratory and sedentary wild fauna require permits under relevant acts of the Administration of “non-CITES species”

Greek Forestry legislation includes separate provisions for species found in protected areas - collection, eradication, removal or destruction of wild flora and fauna species is prohibited is these areas.

Import, export, possession and keeping of live animal species listed in Annex A and Appendix I are prohibited when the purpose of the aforementioned actions is either the trade or distribution in the Greek market for personal purposes, or the possession and keeping for personal purposes.

ES Trade Taking Possession Transport

There are stricter regulations at the regional level (enacted by the Autonomous Communities) for the taking and possession of some native species.

The possession, transport and trade of live or dead specimens of some exotic invasive species (listed in the Catalogue of species) is prohibited. The prohibition can be lifted for research purposes or human health/security reasons.

Royal Decree 630/2013, regulating the Spanish list of exotic invasive species (Catalogue of species as described in Article 61.3 of Law 42/2007)

FI Trade Taking Possession

Possession and trade of certain species listed in the EU Habitats and Bird Directives is prohibited (or strictly regulated). Taking and possession of animal and plant species protected under the Nature Conservation Act is generally prohibited. Taking and possession of dead animal specimens of species protected under the Nature Conservation Act is either prohibited

or regulated by permits. The import of whale meat (and other whale products) is prohibited by law, as is the taking of whales, including for Finnish

vessels.

Nature Conservation Act Law on the protection of whales and arctic

seals 1112/82 with amendments

FR Trade Taking Possession Transport

The possession of live non-domestic animals may (depending on the species and number of specimens) require authorisation at the prefectural level or be limited to authorised facilities (breeding, exhibition, sale, transit etc.)

The possession of live animals (rare, difficult to breed, dangerous or nationally protected) requires prior authorisation at the prefectural level (official approval of the technical qualifications of the manager of the facility and the facility’s suitability).

Trade, taking, possession and transport of protected species native to France (including overseas territories) and the EU is prohibited.

Persons possessing or transporting CITES specimens must be able to provide evidence to prove the legal import of specimens into the EU Customs territory (e.g. receipts or other proof provided by responsible authorities in the EU), if so requested by Customs.

L411 Code of environment “Arrêtés ministériels” by zoological classes Arrêtés du 10/08/2004 Customs Code

75

EU

MS

Stricter

conditions

Further information on key measures

Related legislation

HU Trade Taking Possession

Taking from the wild, possession of, and trade in specimens of native protected species is prohibited by the Act on Nature Conservation.

The marking, registration and documentation of all specimens from vertebrate species listed in Annex A of the EU Regulations and all live specimens of mammals, birds (with certain exemptions) and tortoises species listed in Annex B to the EU Regulations is required. These specimens must be individually marked and accompanied by a breeding certificate if the specimen was bred in captivity in Hungary or a document that verifies the origin for animals that were introduced from outside of Hungary. Keeping of specimens is prohibited without these documents. Specimens must be accompanied by these documents when displayed, sold, bought or transferred by any means.

Act on Nature Conservation Government Decree No. 292/2008 (XII. 10.)

on the specific rules of the enforcement of international and European Community legal acts regulating the international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora

HR Trade Taking Possession

Taking and commercial use of some native CITES protected species is strictly prohibited. Act on Transboundary Movement and Trade in Endangered Species (OG, 94/2013)

IE Taking Possession

The possession of Birds of Prey of the Order Falconiformes requires additional licensing. Falconers are subject to annual inspections to insure adequate accommodation and general compliance with specific Bird of Prey Regulations.

1984 Bird of Prey Regulations

IT Trade Taking Possession

The keeping of dangerous animals such as primates or wild felids is prohibited. Law 150/1992

LT Trade Possession

The commercial use of species listed in Annex A to the EU Regulations is prohibited. Since 1 September 2009, it is prohibited to keep in captivity a number of species. Exemptions apply to zoos and scientific

institutions which have a license. Trade in animal and plant specimens (including parts/derivatives) of species listed in the Lithuanian Red Data Book, CITES

Appendices and Annexes to the EU Regulation is prohibited without a permit issued by the Regional Environmental Protection Departments.

Permits are needed for all imported and exported wild animals (for non-CITES-listed species - simplified permit forms).

Rules on Trade in Protected Wild Flora Species and Rules on Trade in Wild Animals (amended in Jan 2010)

Governmental Resolution No. 261 of 20 Feb 2002 on implementation of CITES convention and Council Regulation No 338/97 was amended: Governmental Resolution No. 68 of 20 Jan 2010

LU Trade Possession

NA

LV Trade Taking Possession Transport

Stricter domestic measures apply to the taking and possession of animal and plant species protected under the Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes.

Birds, mammals and reptiles listed in Appendices I and II of CITES must be registered and marked. The keeping, sale, purchase etc. of marine mammals, crocodilians, primates, snakes and carnivores is prohibited (with some

exceptional cases only with special permit).

Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes

MT Trade Possession

Stricter measures apply for the conditions of trade and possession of CITES-listed and non-CITES-listed species, where the SA and/or MA can advise the Minister for the Environment to prohibit the trade (import, export and re-export) and the possession of any species, if in their opinion such trade and possession would endanger the species or related ecosystem or other species of flora and fauna.

Anyone who wants to import live specimens of fauna (whether CITES-listed or non-CITES-listed) from outside the EU requires an import licence. This license is issued by the Trade Services Directorate following consultation with the SA.

Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations, 2004

76

EU

MS

Stricter

conditions

Further information on key measures

Related legislation

NL Trade Taking Possession Transport

In general, stricter measures apply for the trading and possession of specimens listed in CITES Appendix I/Annex A of the EU Regulations (source W or F), primates, large felidae, hawks, rhino horns and tiger bones, as well as specimens of species protected under the European Bird and Habitat Directive.

It is only possible to trade and keep hawks with source code C if accompanied by DNA fingerprints and an exemption for prohibition on possession from the Minister.

There is an obligation to keep a register of all Annex A specimens (regardless of source); this also applies to birds of Annex B without a seamlessly closed foot ring.

Birds listed in Annex A need to be marked in accordance with the national law on foot rings, and other vertebrates of Annex A listed species need to be marked in accordance with the EU Regulations.

Flora and Fauna Act 1998, amended in 2009 and 2010

Animal and Plant Species Designation Order 2002

Protected Animal and Plant Species Exemption Order 2002

Order of 28 Nov 2000, designating species of flora and fauna under the Flora and Fauna Act

Order of 28 Nov 2000 containing rules for the possession and transport of and trade in protected animal and plant species

Protected Animal and Plant Species Order (Registration of Possession and Trade)

Regulation on the issue and characteristics of closed leg rings and other marks.

PL Trade Taking Possession Transport

The submission of a written declaration of possession to the appropriate District Authority is required for live specimens of species listed in Annexes A and B of the EU Regulations including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, to register the specimens. This registration obligation does not apply to zoological gardens, wildlife traders (e.g. pet shops) or persons/facilities keeping the specimens temporarily for rehabilitation purposes but are required to possess documents proving the legal origin of the specimens (e.g. copy of CITES import permit, permit of acquisition from the wild, and in the case of birth in captivity within the Polish territory a document issued by a district veterinary service, confirming this is required).

Prohibitions on harvesting, possessing, transport, sale and purchase apply to all native protected species (including native CITES-listed species). Exemptions from these prohibitions may be granted by permission of the General or Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection.

Nature Conservation Act of 16 April 2004, with further amendments

PT Trade Taking Possession

Restrictions on the keeping of, and trade in, invasive alien species and dangerous animals, including prohibitions for circus and travelling exhibitions (with a transitional period, if legal origin of the specimens can be proven).

The keeping and trade of autochthonous species listed in the annexes of the Bern Convention and EU Birds and Habitats Directives is prohibited (except, temporarily, for scientific purposes).

Stricter domestic measures also apply with respect to marking, registration and other administrative requirements. Marking is obligatory for all Annex A, B and C specimens.

Decree Law 211/2009 of 3 September Ordinance No. 1226/2009 of 12 October Ordinance No. 07/2010 of 5 January

RO Trade Taking Possession Transport

The capture and killing of wild specimens of sturgeon species for commercial purposes is banned until the end of 2015 It is prohibited to possess strictly protected species and other species listed in the CITES Appendices

Order no. 84/1302/2012 Order of the Ministry of Environment no.

1798/2007 for approving the Procedure for issuing the environment authorization

SE Trade Taking Possession Transport

NA

77

EU

MS

Stricter

conditions

Further information on key measures

Related legislation

SI

Trade Taking Possession Transport

The relevant authority must be notified concerning the keeping of live specimens of large mammals, birds and reptiles listed in CITES Appendices I and II, and to guarantee adequate living conditions for them.

Permits are required for captive-breeding of CITES-listed species. For the import of plants or animals of non-indigenous species for the purpose of (re-)introduction into the wild, captive

breeding or artificial propagation, applicants are required to submit an ‘assessment of risk to nature’ document with the import application.

Permits are required for keeping of indigenous or non-indigenous animal species in captivity with the purpose of public exhibition in zoos, aquariums, terrariums or similar facilities.

It is prohibited to keep wild specimens of CITES Appendix I listed species in captivity. Derogations generally apply to zoos and rescue centres and in exceptional cases.

It is prohibited to keep cetaceans in captivity for commercial purposes, including for commercial dolphinaria and therapeutic programmes.

Transport, sale, offer for sale and exchange of live or dead wild-taken specimens of protected species is prohibited. Derogations apply in certain cases (e.g. if specimens were legally taken from the wild, imported, seized and confiscated in accordance with the EU Regulations).

Permits are required for the acquisition and keeping of confiscated live specimens for commercial purposes. The marking of wild species is required for mammals, birds and reptiles listed in Annex B and which are a) part of a breeding

stock, b) protected by a regulation governing the protection of wild animal species and c) selected species of Psittaciformes. For Psittaciformes listed in Annex A, birds of prey and owls, a deposit of samples for molecular and genetic analyses is mandatory.

It is prohibited to take, harm, kill or otherwise disturb protected animal or plant species (including some CITES-listed species) or their habitats and structures.

Commercial activities involving specimens of certain protected native species are prohibited. Exemptions are foreseen for specimens which have been legally obtained, captive-bred or artificially propagated or are essential for the advancement of science.

It is required to keep records of trade in live specimens of animal species listed in Annexes A or B to the EU Regulations and of other protected animal species.

Natural Conservation Act – Art. 17, 18, 19 and 21

Order on the living conditions for and care of wild animals kept in captivity – Annex I

Rules on the marking of animals of wild species kept in captivity – Art. 20

Decree on the course of conduct and protection measures in the trade in animal and plant species – Art. 16, 28, 29

Decree on zoos and similar facilities Decree on protected wild animal species –

Art 13, Art 14 Decree on protected wild plant species

SK Trade Taking Possession Transport

Complete prohibition of possession of Calloscuirus erythraeus, Sciurus carolinensis, S. niger, Oxyura jamaicensis, Chrysemys picta, Trachemys scripta elegans, Rana catesbeiana.

Decree No. 449/2009 Coll. amending and supplementing Decree No 110/2005

UK

Trade Taking Possession Transport

The re-export of raw ivory is prohibited. Any commercial use of raw rhino horns is banned, according to a strict interpretation of the EU Regulations introduced in

October 2010. Worked specimens of rhino horn must satisfy strict criteria before an export/re-export permit is issued. In March 2012, the UK removed the “high artistic value” derogation introduced in 2010 as part of those stricter measures.

Stricter domestic measures are in place for tigers (Panthera tigris) and bear bile, paws, and gall bladders (Ursidae) In addition, UK’s stricter domestic measures include prohibition of:

– intentionally killing, injuring, taking from the wild, possessing or having control of certain protected species including Basking Shark, Bottle Nosed Dolphins, Common Dolphins and Harbour Porpoises;

– sale, offer for sale, possession or transport for the purpose of sale of certain protected live non-native species; – transport, offer for sale or exchange of any (wild) live or dead cetacean; – release or allowed escape of non-native and invasive species from captivity.

Wildlife and Countryside Act ,1981 (amended by the Wildlife and Environment (Scotland) Act 2011)

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

Wildlife Act 1990 and Wild Animals Act 1980 (amended 2013) (Isle of Man)

78

EU

MS

Stricter

conditions

Further information on key measures

Related legislation

UK cont

.

In addition, the Isle of Man’s stricter domestic measures include: – the prohibition of intentional or reckless killing, injuring, taking, disturbance or sale of all Cetacea, leatherback turtles and

basking sharks; – the prohibition of intentional or reckless destruction of orchids; – the protection of all wild birds (excluding teal and widgeon during open season); – the import and keeping of certain species without a licence.

Notes:

1) This table aims to provide an overview of domestic measures that are stricter than the EU Regulations.

2) In this table, “EU Regulations” refers to the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations as a whole (Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006). 3) Abbreviations: MA – Management Authority, MS – Member States, NA – not available, SA - Scientific Authority

4) The column “stricter conditions/prohibitions” provides the list of issues selected by MS in questions B5 and B5b of their Biennial Reports.

79

ANNEX 5: PENALTIES

Abbreviations: ca. – approximately; Int – intent; Neg – negligence; Cr – crime; Ad – administrative offence; Sum- summary conviction; Ind – conviction on indictment.

Legislation Private persons Legal entity

Max. prison

sentence

Species

value in

penalty?

Notes

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

AT Austrian Species Trade Act of

16 March 2010

not specified Cr: 1 800 000

Ad: 40 000

Cr: 40 daily units(1) Cr:180 daily units(1)

Ad: 40 000

Int: 2 years

Neg: 1 year

Yes (1) criminal fines based on

daily rates

BE Law of 28 July 1981 (as

amended)

156 300 000 156 300 000 5 years Yes

BG Biodiversity Act (SG, 77/2002)

(as amended)

Cr: 500

Ad: 256

Cr: 10 000

Ad: 5113

Ad: 511 Ad: 10 226 Int: 5 years No

CY Law No. 153(I)/2003; suppl.

by Law No. 94(1)/2004 and

Law No. 46(I)/1994

Ad: ca.1700 Ad: ca. 1700 3 years No

CZ Act No. 100/2004 Coll., on

the Trade in Endangered

Species, 2004

not specified 58 700 not specified 58 700 - Yes

Act No. 40/2009 Coll., the

Criminal Code

not specified not specified not specified not specified 8 years Yes

DE Federal Nature Conservation

Act, §69

Ad: 50 000 Ad: 50 000 - Yes(1) (1) in some circumstances, if

available

Federal Nature Conservation

Act, §69, 71 and 71a

5(1) 1 800 000(1) not specified Int: 1 000 000

Neg: 500 000

5 years Yes(2) (1) based on “day fines” taking

into account financial situation (2) depending on gravity of

offence

Federal Nature Conservation

Act, §71a para. 2 and 4

5 1 800 000 not specified Int: 1 000 000

Neg: 500 000

3 years

DK Nature Protection Act (1997) variable variable variable variable Int: 1 year Yes Fines depend on EU Annex

and market value; fines higher

for commercial violations

Ministry of Environment and

Energy Statutory Order No.

84 (2002)

variable variable variable variable - No set minimum or maximum

violations

EE

Nature Conservation Law

(2004); suppl. by Code of

Misdem. Proc., Customs Act

(2004), Animal Protection Act

(2001) and Penal Code

not specified 1150 not specified 3200 - Yes

Reg. of the Government

08.04.2005 No. 69

ca. 65 000 ca. 65 000 - N/A Compensation for

environmental damage due to

infringement of Reg. 338/97

80

Legislation Private persons Legal entity

Max. prison

sentence

Species

value in

penalty?

Notes

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

EE cont.

Penal Code not specified not specified not specified not specified 5 years N/A Max. sentence for

infringement carried out by a

group/abuse of official

position.

EL Law 4042/2012 (Directive

2008/99//EC)

3000 500 000 3000 500 000 Int:10 years

Neg:1year

N/A

Law 2637/1998 and

Legislative Decree 86/1969

1500(1) 30 000(1) 1500(1) 30 000(1) 2 years N/A (1)fines may be doubled for

repeated offences.

Customs Code

Law 2960/2001

3000(1) 3000(2) 3000(1) 3000(2) 20 years N/A (1)live animals only. EUR 750

for specimens or samples of

wild fauna/flora. (2)live animals only. Five times

amount of duties and taxes

for specimens or samples of

wild fauna/flora.

ES Organic Law 10/1995 of 23

November 1995 on Criminal

Code, Arts. 332, 334 and 339

480(1) 288 000(1) not specified(2) not specified(2) Int: 2 years Yes(3) (1)based on day fines. (2)based on day fines (EUR 30

to EUR 5000) (3)penalties depend partly on

threat status of species

Organic Law 6/2011 of 30

June 2011, modifying Organic

Law 12/1995 of 12

December 1995 to deter

smuggling

Ad: 1000

Cr: 50 000

Ad: 175 000(1)

Cr: unlimited(2)

Ad: 1000

Cr: 50 000

Ad: 175 000(1)

Cr: unlimited(2)

AND

Cr: 5 years(3)

Yes (1) threshold market value of

EUR 50 000 to distinguish

administrative sanction and

crime. For administrative

offences, fine of between 200

and 350% specimen value (2) between 100 and 600%

specimen value (3) in addition to a fine

Royal Decree 1649/1998 of

24 July 1998

variable(1) variable(1) variable(1) variable(1) - Yes (1) For the amount of sanction

see Organic Law 6/2011.

FI Nature Conservation Act

1096/1996 (as amended)

(sections 58-59); Penal Code

(section 5)

1 day fine(1) 240 day fines(1) 850 850 000(2) 2 years(3) Yes (1) day fine depends on income

of accused. Total fine depends

on gravity/no. of offences. (2) if serious crime involving

corporate. (3) 2 years max. per case; 4

years max. if several cases

together.

81

Legislation Private persons Legal entity

Max. prison

sentence

Species

value in

penalty?

Notes

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

FR

Environmental Code, Article

L415-3 to 415-5;

Article L415-6

- 15 000

(150 000) (1)

- 15 000

(150 000) (1)

1 year

(7 years) (1)

Yes (1) if organised group

Customs Code, Article 414 variable(1) variable(2) variable(1) variable(2)/ (3)

3 years

(10 years)(3)

N/A (1) specimen value (2) twice specimen value (3) more in exceptional

circumstances/organised crime

HR Act on Transboundary

Movement and Trade in

Endangered Species (OG

94/2013)

ca. 395 ca. 13 160 ca. 920 ca. 131 580 5 years Yes

HU Government Decree No.

292/2008 (XII. 10.)

ca. 32(1) ca. 320(1) ca. 32(1) ca. 320(1) - Yes(2) (1) fines per “specimen” (e.g.

each 250 g for caviar, ivory,

rhino horn) (2) if nationally protected

species.

Criminal Code ca. 264 ca. 380 106 ca. 1737 variable(1) Int: 3 years

Neg: 2 years

Yes (1) three times financial benefit

to be gained

IE Wildlife Acts 1976 to 2012;

Wildlife Amendment Act

(2010) Section 7

not specified Sum: 5000

Ind: 100 000

not specified Sum: 5000

Ind: 100 000

Sum: 12

months

Ind: 2 years

IT Law 150/92 and amendments

(Annex A specimens) – Penal

prosecution

Cr: 7750

(10 330) (1)

Cr: 75 000

(103 000) (1)

Cr: 7750 Cr: 75 000 AND 1 year

(2 years)(1)

No (1) second offences

Law 150/92 (for Annex B and

C specimens) – Penal

prosecution

Ad: 10 330 Ad: 103 000 Ad: 10 330 Ad: 103 000 OR 1 year

(AND 1

year)(1)

No (1) second offences

Law 150/92 - Fines Ad: 259 Ad: 30 988 Ad: 259 Ad: 30 988 - No

LV Criminal Law (1998),

amendment Art. 115 (2012)

not specified 28 457(1) 2845(2) 28 457 000(2) 2 years N/A (1) up to 100 times the

monthly min. wage (2) monetary levies where

offence done for benefit and

interest of legal person.

Administrative Violation Code

(1985), amendment Art. 79

(2003)

70(1)

(70(2))

700(1)

(350(2))

140(1)

(700(2))

1400(1)

(7150(2))

- Yes (1) internal violations of the

regulations (2) violations of the regulations

at borders

82

Legislation Private persons Legal entity

Max. prison

sentence

Species

value in

penalty?

Notes

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

LT Administrative Law Violations

Code No. X-4449 (1984);

suppl. by other laws

not specified 290 - - - No(1) (1) fines higher for protected

species

Criminal Code - 37 650 - 1 882 530 4 years No(1) (1) fines higher for protected

species

LU Art. 12, Law of 21 April 1989,

amending Law 19 Feb 1975

ca. 62 ca. 25 000 ca. 62 ca. 25 000 6 months N/A

Arts. 44-47, Law on Protection

of Nature and Natural

Resources (1982) and Law

Aiming to Protect the Life and

Welfare of Animals (1983)

not specified not specified not specified not specified 6 months N/A

MT Environment Protection Act

(CAP. 435), Trade in Species

of Fauna and Flora

Regulations (2004)

466 4659 not specified not specified 2 years Yes(1) (1) penalties from Customs

based on market value.

NL Flora and Fauna Act, amended

24 Apr (2002); Penal Code

not specified Int: 81 000

Neg: 20 250

not specified Int: 810 000

Neg: 202 500

Int: 6 years

Neg: 1 year

Yes

PL Nature Conservation Act

(2004) Arts. 127-131, suppl.

by other laws (minor offences

described in Arts. 127-131)

5 1250 5 1250 30 days Yes

Nature Conservation Act

(2004) Articles 127-131,

suppl. by other laws (crimes

described in Art. 128)

25 175 000 250 1 250 000(1) Int: 5 years

Neg: 2 years

Yes Fines may also be calculated

as % of annual income (e.g.

where organised crime,

falsification of permits), up to

EUR 5 000 000 (1) but not higher than 3%

yearly income of entity.

PT Law Decree 211/2009, Article

25(1), (2) and (3)

200 37 500 3000 2 500 000 - Yes Minimum/maximum fines

depend on offence being very

serious, serious or minor.

Penal Code Law (Law

56/2001 of 15.11.2011),

Article 278

No No No No 3 years(1) Yes (1)for capture of indigenous

species, 1 year for trade in

protected species. Serious

offences sentenced jointly

under smuggling offences

result in higher sentences.

83

Legislation Private persons Legal entity

Max. prison

sentence

Species

value in

penalty?

Notes

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

RO Governmental Ordinance No.

57/2007 (Art. 53(2)(i))

1190 2380 7140 14 285 - N/A

Governmental Ordinance No.

57/2007 (Art. 53(3)(k)

1785 3570 11 900 23 800 - N/A

Penal Code

- - - - 3 years N/A

SE Environmental Code, Chapter

29, 2b §

variable(1) variable(1) 500 1 000 000 4 years Yes (1) given as day fines.

Act on Penalties in Connection

with Smuggling

variable variable variable variable 6 years N/A

SI Nature Conservation Act

(2004), Art. 160, 161

40 4000 1000 10 000 - Yes

Decree (Ur. l. RS, No.

39/2008), Art. 45

85 16 690 2600 33 000 - N/A

Act implementing the Customs

regulations of the European

Community

300 1200 2000 125 000 - N/A

Criminal Code (Ur. l. RS, No.

55/2008)

NA(1) NA(1) NA(2) NA(2) 3 years(3)

N/A (1) fine linked to offender’s

income. (2) for offences for which

prescribed punishment for

natural person is: (i) < 3

years, max. fine is EUR

500 000; (ii) > 3 years, max.

fine is EUR 1 000 000 (3) 5 years in exceptional cases

or if act was committed by a

criminal organisation.

SK Act No. 15/2005 as amended

(Art. 22 - 25)

- 19 916 80 66 000 - No

Act No. 199/2004 on

Customs Law as amended

(Art. 74, 80)

- 3319 - 99 582 Yes

Criminal Code No. 300/2005

as amended (Art. 56, 305)

160 331 930 - - 8 years N/A

84

Legislation Private persons Legal entity

Max. prison

sentence

Species

value in

penalty?

Notes

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

Min. fine

(EUR)

Max. fine

(EUR)

UK Control of Trade in

Endangered Species

(Enforcement) Regulations

1997 (as amended)

(summary conviction)

variable ca. 6 800 variable ca. 6 800 6 months Yes

Control of Trade in

Endangered Species

(Enforcement) Regulations

1997 (as amended)

(conviction on indictment)

not specified unlimited not specified unlimited 5 years Yes

Customs and Excise

Management Act (1979)

not specified unlimited not specified unlimited 7 years(1) N/A (1) for certain import/export

offences.

85

ANNEX 6: PERMITS ISSUED AND DENIED

Import Export Re-export Other Total

AT Issued 4835 388 8341 34 13598

BE Issued 2058 1607 1902 7937 13504

BG Issued 340 59 19 61 479

Denied 3 0 0 0 3

CY Issued 12 45 0 57

CZ Issued 1154 670 42 1866

Denied 6

DE Issued 15521 5114 21717 2116 44468

DK Issued 1990 681 998 0 3669

EE Issued 134 65 16 35 250

EL Issued 972 14 2063 80 3129

Denied 1 0 0 1 2

ES Issued 4756 2127 4997 474 12354

Denied 0 1 0 0 1

FI Issued 257 74 64 248 643

Denied 1 0 0 0 1

FR Issued 52647 7648 137115 18779 216189

Denied 147 33 147 447 774

HR Issued 131 58 13 3 205

Denied 2 0 0 0 2

HU Issued 372 91 16 479

IE Issued 37 98 4 580 719

IT Issued 15480 1091 143986 7017 167574

LT Issued 142 22 18 59 241

LU Issued 230 15 105 78 428

LV Issued 414 83 61 78 636

Denied 2 0 0 0 2

MT Issued 190 55 1 281 527

NL Issued 3908 1656 3945 2 9511

Denied 74 16 4 0 94

PL Issued 718 45 22 1228 2013

Denied 0 0 0 6 6

PT Issued 2080 258 2757 13530 18625

RO Issued 411 121 48 502 1082

SE Issued 1437 83 76 0 1596

SI Issued 288 100 29 1 418

SK Issued 281 96 2 1505 1884

Denied 0 0 0 2 2

UK Issued 26061 6005 31111 0 63177

Denied 263 10 150 0 423

Total Issued 136856 28369 359468 54628 579321

Denied 493 60 301 456 1316

Notes:

0 – no permits were issued, – no information was provided

86

ANNEX 7: EU MA AND SA STAFFING, PERMIT ISSUANCE AND SA REFERRALS,

2013-2014

MS MA Staff

FTE

SA

Staff

FTE

Total Permits

Issued 2013-

2014

Permits issued

per day MA staff

time

SA Referrals

2013-2104

Referrals per

day SA staff

time

AT 8 2 13598 3.6 10000 10.6

BE 7.2 1.45 13504 4.0 117 0.2

BG 2.5 0.8 479 0.4

CY 1.8 0.8 57 0.1 60 0.2

CZ 5 4.2 1866 0.8 1800 0.9

DE 14 4.5 44468 6.8 11000 5.2

DK 3.8 1 3669 2.1

EE 0.3 0.25 250 1.8 200 1.7

EL 5.7 2 3129 1.2 67 0.1

ES 18.5 0.6 12354 1.4 200 0.7

FI 3 0.3 643 0.5 10 0.1

FR 60 1.8 216189 7.7 1550 1.8

HR 1.15 0.5 205 0.4 200 0.9

HU 1.5 0.2 479 0.7 100 1.1

IE 1.6 0.3 719 1.0 140 1.0

IT 262 3.2 167574 1.4 4000 2.7

LT 1 0.9 241 0.5 52 0.1

LU 0.1 0.6 428 9.1 1 0.0

LV 1.5 0.15 636 0.9 4 0.1

MT 3.75 0.04 527 0.3 19 1.0

NL 15.1 3.3 9511 1.3 231 0.1

PL 5 1 2013 0.9 470 1.0

PT 6.25 0.65 18625 6.3 30 0.1

RO 1 0.3 1082 2.3

SE 3 0.8 1596 1.1 1500 4.0

SI 1 0.3 418 0.9 45 0.3

SK 4 3 1884 1.0 1800 1.3

UK 22 5.75 63177 6.1 20000 7.4

Notes: blank – no information was provided

87

ANNEX 8: ABBREVIATIONS

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COM Management Committee

CoP Conference of the Parties

EC European Community

EU European Union

EU-TWIX EU Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange

ICPO International Crime Police Organisation (Interpol)

ICCWC International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

MA Management Authority

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

SA Scientific Authority

SRG Scientific Review Group

WCO Worlds Customs Organisation

Country codes

AT Austria IE Ireland

BE Belgium IT Italy

BG Bulgaria LT Lithuania

CY Cyprus LU Luxembourg

CZ Czech Republic LV Latvia

DE Germany MT Malta

DK Denmark NL Netherlands

EE Estonia PL Poland

EL Greece PT Portugal

ES Spain RO Romania

FI Finland SE Sweden

FR France SI Slovenia

HR Croatia SK Slovakia

HU Hungary UK United Kingdom

88

ANNEX 9: BIENNIAL REPORT QUESTIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE EU ENFORCEMENT ACTION PLAN

EU EAP Recommendations

To increase enforcement capacity

II.a Adopt national action plans for coordination of enforcement; these should have clearly defined objectives

and time frames, and should be harmonised and reviewed on a regular basis

C20

II.b Ensure that all relevant enforcement agencies have adequate financial and personnel resources for the

enforcement of Regulations (EC) No 338/97 and that they have access to specialized equipment and relevant

expertise

C21, D4.2,

D4.6/4.7,

D6.1, D8.1

II.c Ensure that penalties for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 act as a deterrent against wildlife trade

crime, in accordance with settled case law of the Court of Justice, are consistent as to their application and, in

particular, that they take into account inter alia the market value of the specimens, the conservation value of

the species involved in the offence and the costs incurred;

B9b, C2,

C9b, C22

II.d For the purpose of II.c, carry out training or awareness raising activities for enforcement agencies,

prosecution services and the judiciary

C23, D6.2

II.e Ensure that all relevant enforcement agencies have access to adequate training on Regulation (EC) No 338/97

and on identification of species

C23, D6.2

II.f Ensure the provision of adequate information to the public and stakeholders with a view, in particular, to

raising awareness about the negative impacts of illegal wildlife trade

D4.10

II.g In addition to checks at border-crossing points required under Regulation (EC) No 338/97, ensure in-country

enforcement, in particular through regular checks on traders and holders such as pet shops, breeders and

nurseries

C1, C24

II.h Use risk and intelligence assessments systematically in order to ensure thorough checks at border-crossing

points, as well as in-country

C25

II.i Ensure that facilities are available for the temporary care of seized or confiscated live specimens and

mechanisms are in place for their long-term re-homing, where necessary

B8, C10,

C19, C26

To increase co-operation and information exchange

III.a Establish procedures for co-ordinating enforcement among all relevant national authorities through, inter

alia , the establishment of inter-agency committees as well as memoranda of understanding and other inter-

institutional cooperation agreements

D7.1-D7.5

III.b Facilitate access for relevant enforcement officers to existing resources, tools and channels of

communication for the exchange of information relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 338/97

and CITES, so that all relevant information is made available to enforcement officers at all levels, including

front line staff

C21, D4.2,

D4.6/4.7,

D6.1, D8.1

III.c Appoint national focal points for the exchange of wildlife trade information and intelligence D3.6

III.d Share relevant information about significant trends, seizures and court cases at the regular meetings of the

Enforcement Group as well as intersessionally

III.e Co-operate with relevant enforcement agencies in other Member States on investigations of offences under

Regulation (EC) No 338/97

C12/13, C27

III.f Use the means of communication, coordination and know-how of the European Anti-fraud Office in co-

ordinating investigations at Community level

n/a

III.g Exchange information on penalties for wildlife trade offences to ensure consistency in application

III.h Assist in capacity building for application of the Regulation (EC) No 338/97 in other Member States including

through training programmes and by sharing training manuals and materials

D6.3

III.i Make available to other Member States existing awareness-raising tools and material aimed at the public

and stakeholders

n/a

III.j Assist other Member States with the temporary care and long-term re-housing of seized and confiscated live

specimens

C28

III.k Liaise closely with CITES Management Authorities and law enforcement agencies in source, transit and

consumer countries outside of the Community as well as the CITES Secretariat, ICPO Interpol and the World

Customs Organisation to help detect, deter and prevent illegal trade in wildlife through exchange of

information and intelligence

C11, C29

III.l Provide advice and support to CITES Management Authorities and law enforcement agencies in source,

transit and consumer countries outside of the Community to facilitate legal and sustainable trade through

correct application of procedures

C30,

D7.9/7.10

III.m Support capacity-building programmes in third countries in order to improve implementation and

enforcement of CITES, inter alia , through Development Co-operation funds and in the framework of a future

"Aid for Trade Strategy".

n/a

III.n Foster inter-regional collaboration to combat illegal wildlife trade inter alia by building links with other

regional and subregional initiatives

n/a

Related BR

Question

89