analysis of eu member states cites implementation … of eu... · report format which follows the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
ANALYSIS OF EU MEMBER STATES CITES
IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS 2015–2017
December 2019
Louisa Musing and Hiromi Shiraishi
A TRAFFIC Report prepared for the European Commission
Contract: 070202/2016/736963/SER/ENV.F3
2
Report prepared by TRAFFIC for the European Commission under Contract 070202/2016/736963/SER/ENV.F3 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 or TRAFFIC. 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 organisations 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. Suggested citation: Musing, L. and Shiraishi, H. (2019). Analysis of EU Member State CITES Implementation Reports 2015–2017. Report prepared for the European Commission.
3
Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5
2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3. EU ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 8
GOAL 1: ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CONVENTION .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Objective 1.1 Parties comply with their obligations under the Convention through appropriate
policies, legislation and procedures. ................................................................................................. 8
Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent, practical,
coherent and use-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens .............................. 10
Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with
decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties ...................................................................... 12
Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species. ..................... 12
Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings. ....... 13
Objective 1.6 Parties co-operate in managing shared wildlife resources. ..................................... 16
Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade ..................... 19
Objective 1.8. Parties and the Secretariat have adequate capacity-building programmes in place
.......................................................................................................................................................... 26
GOAL 2: SECURE THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MEANS FOR THE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION ........................................................................................... 26
Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national and international levels to ensure
compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention. ............................... 26
Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national and international levels to
implement capacity-building programmes ..................................................................................... 30
GOAL 3 Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and achieving relevant
globally-agreed goals and targets ........................................................................................................ 32
Objective 3.1 Measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce duplication between CITES and
other MEAs ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally. ........................ 33
Objective 3.3 Measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce duplication between CITES and
other MEAs ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals, the
sustainable development goals set at WSSD, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and
the relevant Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the relevant outcomes of the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development is strengthened by ensuring that international trade in
wild fauna and flora is conducted at sustainable levels. ................................................................ 35
Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international
organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources, as appropriate, in order to
achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be endangered by
unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially exploited. ..................................... 36
4
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 38
4.1 Main conclusions on EU and Member States implementation of CITES .................................. 38
4.2 Evaluation of the Implementation Report format .................................................................... 40
4.3 Development of a new supplement to the report for EU Member States .............................. 43
4.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 46
5. ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................... 47
ANNEX 1: CITES Implementation Report format ............................................................................ 47
ANNEX 2: Summary assessment table ............................................................................................. 80
ANNEX 3: Additional summary tables ............................................................................................. 90
ANNEX 4: List of surveys, studies or analyses undertaken, and their results (where applicable),
related to question 1.5.1a by EU Member States in 2015-2017 ................................................... 103
ANNEX 5: The list of conservation measures or recovery plans for naturally occurring Appendix I
listed species by Member States in 2015-2017 (1.5.1c) ................................................................ 105
ANNEX 6: Penalties......................................................................................................................... 106
ANNEX 7: Abbreviations................................................................................................................. 117
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Union (EU) constitutes one of the largest and most diverse markets, particularly as a
destination market and trade hub, for wildlife and wildlife products in the world. According to the
latest calculations of the EU’s legal trade (conducted by UNEP-WCMC1), the EU’s imports of CITES-
listed animals (excluding caviar extract due to their disproportionally high values) was estimated at
approximately EUR 1.5 billion, with exports exceeding this value, totalling approximately EUR 2.6
billion in 2017. For plants, the EU imported the value of EUR 240 million and exported an estimated
value of EUR 262 million. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES), which entered into force in 1975, is an international agreement between
governments which aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants
does not threaten their survival. All EU Member States are Parties to CITES and on 8 July 2015, the EU
also became a Party to CITES in its own right.
CITES is implemented in the EU through two main Regulations: Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 on
the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (as amended2, and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 as amended3), as well as two additional Commission Regulations.
This set of Regulations is also known as the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations (hereafter referred to as the
“Wildlife Trade 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 Regulation (EU) 2019/10104 on the alignment of reporting obligations in the field of
legislation related to the environment, reporting under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 required
streamlining and alignment with the reporting requirements under CITES. The reporting requirements
under CITES were amended at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP) to
adjust the frequency of reporting on measures regarding the implementation of CITES and to create a
new reporting mechanism on illegal trade in CITES-listed species. The amendment to Article 15 states
that the Management Authorities (MA) are required to draw up reports one year before each meeting
of the CoP all information relating to the proceeding period 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 amendment also states that based on the information submitted by the
Member States, the Commission shall make publicly available a Union-wide overview on the
implementation and enforcement of this Regulation.
The CITES Implementation Reports submitted by Parties for the period 2015–2017 adopt the new
report format which follows the structure of the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-20205 (Res. Conf. 16.3).
and allows direct input of information related to the Strategic Vision indicators. In January 2016, the
1 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/EU%20Wildlife%20Trade%202017_Analysis%20of%20the%20EU%20Annual%20Reports%20to%20CITES.pdf 2 The Regulation was most recently amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 of 5 June 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. 3 The Regulation was most recently amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/220 of 6 February 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1010&from=EN 5 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-16-03-R17_0.pdf
6
new “Implementation Report” format was adopted at the 66th meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, and it was shared via notification to the Parties No. 2016/006 by the CITES Secretariat in
February 20166. The present EU Analysis of the Implementation Reports for the period 2015–2017 is
based on reports submitted by all 28 EU Member States and aims to assess EU Member States’
compliance with, and performance and effectiveness in, implementing CITES. The analysis provides
some useful examples, facts and figures of the EU Member States’ implementation of CITES, which
will enable the European Commission and EU Member States to identify successes as well as
possibilities for improvement and learn from good practice. Given the change to the reporting format,
the Discussion and conclusions section of this analysis also evaluates the new format and its usefulness
in extracting the details requested. It also considers whether there is a need for an addition to the
questionnaire by evaluating the questions and topics excluded from the current report that could
provide useful information for understanding better CITES compliance and efforts in ensuring
sustainable legal trade in the EU.
2. METHODS All 28 EU Member States have submitted their Implementation Reports for 2015–2017. Section 3 of
this report addresses and discusses the responses given to all questions in the Implementation Report
in detail.
There are several questions in the Implementation Reports to which some Member States have
answered in reference to the Wildlife Trade Regulations and associated EU initiatives, rather than at
a national level, and vice versa. All those questions where this may be applicable, are indicated with
an asterisk (*).
The 2015–2017 Implementation Report analysis follows a method similar to the one used for the
2013–2014 reporting period (see Crook and Musing, 20167), and is composed of three main sections:
Section 3 – The analysis of EU Member State Implementation Reports (hereafter referred to
as the EU analysis) which provides an overview of answers to the questions in the
Implementation Report and some specific examples given by Member States;
Section 4 – A discussion focusing on the usefulness of the current format and structure of the
Implementation Report and consideration for the development of an additional part;
Section 5 – Annexes including summary tables of the answers provided by individual Member
States and additional supporting information.
The EU analysis covers legislative, compliance, implementation and enforcement measures in
accordance with the CITES Strategic Vision goals and objectives. 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. As far as possible, the wording used in the analysis is similar
to that provided by Member States in their reports. No comparison to previous CITES Biennial Report
Analyses were made, as the reporting format and period has changed.
Answers provided in the 2015–2017 Implementation Reports were assumed to refer to actions taken
by the Member State during the 2015–2017 reporting period only (unless otherwise stated or inferred).
6 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2016-006.pdf 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2013-2014.pdf
7
Interpreting some of the answers provided by Member States involves some subjectivity, and so
Member States were consulted regarding their answers, where needed.
When examining the responses to each of the questions, it should be noted that for several questions
in the implementation reports, Member States were able to select multiple answers. Therefore, in the
cases where Member States have been identified as giving a certain response, they may have also
provided an additional answer to the same question. To see all responses given by Member States to
each question, see Annexes 2 and 3. Where values are provided in non-Euro currencies, a conversion
to Euros (EUR), using the average exchange rate for 2015–2017 for that currency as per Central
European Bank is provided.
Table 1 provides a summary of how answers given by Member States were defined and interpreted.
Table 1. Methods used for interpretation of Biennial Report answers for inclusion in the summary
tables
Interpretation of answers Annex Questions this was applied to
As per question:
Y for “Yes”
N for “No”
O for “No information”
X for “Not applicable”
If left blank (no answer
provided), the box was
shaded grey
Annex 2 1.1.1b, 1.2.1a-b. 1.2.2a, 1.3.1b, 1.4.1a, 1.5.1a, 1.5.1c-
e, 1.5.2a, 1.5.3a-b, 1.6.1a, 1.6.2b, 1.7.1a, 1.7.3a-g,
1.7.4b, 1.7.5a-c, 1.8.1a-c, 2.2.1a-d, 2.2.2c, 2.2.3b,
2.2.3d, 2.2.4a, 3.1.1a, 3.1.2a, 3.3.1a, 3.3.2c, 3.3.2d,
3.4.1a-b, 3.4.2a-b, 3.5.1a
If a Member State answered
“No” to questions 1.1.1a but
answered ‘No’ or ‘Not
applicable’ to the following
question regarding the sharing
of information with the
Secretariat, it was interpreted
as no answer and the box was
shaded grey.
Annex 2 1.1.1a
As per question:
1 for “Yes”
Left blank for no
answer/selection
Annex 3 1.3.1a, 1.5.1b, 1.5.2b-c, 1.6.3a-c, 1.7.2a-b, 1.7.4a,
1.7.4c-e, 1.7.5d, 2.2.2a-b, 2.2.2d-e, 2.2.3a, 2.2.3c,
2.2.4b, 2.3.1a, 2.3.1c, 3.3.1b, 3.2.1a, 3.2.2a-b, 3.3.2a-
b, 3.3.3a, 3.5.2a
8
3. EU ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION
GOAL 1: ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CONVENTION
Objective 1.1 Parties comply with their obligations under the Convention through
appropriate policies, legislation and procedures.
Q.1.1.1a* Development of CITES relevant policies or legislation
The provisions of CITES policies and legislation are implemented uniformly across all EU Member
States through the Wildlife Trade Regulations8. They are transferred into national legislation and
supplemented with national laws. Twelve Member States reported having developed policies or
legislation between 2015 and 2017 relevant to CITES. However, some of these Member States
responded to this question in reference to current EU law, not national law. For example, three
Member States noted the EU Guidance Document published in May 2017 suspending the (re-)export
of raw ivory items and providing guidance to ensure the strict interpretation of the provisions under
EU law authorising intra-EU trade and the (re-)export of worked ivory9 (DE, SI, SK). Other Member
States mentioned legislative changes to Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 and amendments
to Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 792/2012 (ES, NL). Issuance of additional Guidance
Documents on re-export, import and domestic trade in the EU of rhino horns (ES), and amendments
made to EU legislation to reflect the new listing of species on the CITES Appendices following CoP17
(MT) were also mentioned. Question 1.1.1a also asks Parties to indicate whether they shared
information or further details of any legislative changes and guidance documents with the CITES
Secretariat, however Member States answered inconsistently. Some Member States noted that
details of the guidance document suspending the re-export of raw ivory items was shared with the
CITES Secretariat in the EU’s response to Notification 2017/077, while five of the 12 Member States
who answered positively to this question noted sharing further details with the CITES Secretariat (DE,
DK, FR, PT, UK). Some Member States provided specific details on the new CITES relevant policies or
legislation developed between 2015 and 2017 (Table 2).
Table 2. Summary of national CITES relevant policies or legislation developed between 2015 and
2017
Member State New CITES relevant policy/legislation 2015-2017
Finland The Criminal Code of Finland (39/1889) was amended
(30.12.2015/1683) to include a new paragraph on serious nature
conservation crime. The Chapter on Environmental offences now
differentiates between “nature conservation offence” (fine or maximum
imprisonment of two years) and “serious or aggravated nature
conservation offence” (minimum imprisonment four months, maximum
imprisonment four years).
Hungary In 2017 the Hungarian Government Decree No. 292/2008 (XII. 10.) was
amended to extend and implement a national registration obligation for
specimens of Appendix II species with zero export quota as adopted by
the Conference of Parties.
8 These regulations are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all EU Member States (see Art. 22 Reg. EC No. 338/97) 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/guidance_ivory.pdf
9
Adoption of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biodiversity
2015–2020. The National Biodiversity Strategy’s 18th objective is:
“Protecting animal and plant species threatened by trade” and deals
specifically with the conservation status of native species listed by CITES.
The Netherlands The Flora and Fauna Act (Flora- en Faunawet) expired in 2016 and was
replaced by:
- The Nature Conservation Act (Wet natuurbescherming) (1-1-2017 -
present) https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0037552/2018-07-01;
- The Nature Conservation Decree (Besluit natuurbescherming)
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0038662/2018-01-01; and
- The Nature Conservation Regulation (Regeling natuurbescherming)
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0038668/2018-10-01
For the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (Bonaire, Saint Eustatius
and Saba):
- The Regulation for Implementing CITES Convention BES (Regeling
uitvoering CITES-verdrag) was amended in 2016
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2016-34222.html
Slovakia In 2016, the Act on Criminal Liability of Legal Entities was adopted; and
From 1 December 2017 marking of birds can only be carried out by rings
sold by the licensed distributor (state organisation).
Slovenia In 2017, there was an amendment to the Decree on the rules of conduct
and protection methods in trade in animal and plant species to include
the ban on re-export of pre-convention elephant ivory.
Spain In 2015, the Organic Law 1/2015, of March 30, which modified the
Organic Law 10/1995, of November 23, of the Criminal Code (published
in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) on 03/31/2015, and corrected BOE
errors 11/ 06/2015); and
In 2016, Resolution of November 29, 2016 of the General Directorate of
International Trade and Investments, which designates the Territorial
and Provincial Offices of Commerce authorized to issue the permits and
certificates established in Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and
regulates the automated electronic processing of the control documents
(Published in the BOE on 12/26/2016, nº 311)
The United
Kingdom
The UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies made good
progress towards putting in place CITES legislation to bring them into
Category One status10.
Q.1.1.1b* Easy amendment of national laws to reflect changes made in the CITES Appendices
Changes to the CITES Appendices are reflected at EU level via changes to the Annexes to Council
Regulation (EC) No 338/97 through a Commission Regulation. It is clear from the responses that some
10 According to CITES National Legislation Project, , Category One Status means that the legislation of a CITES Party is believed generally to meet the requirements for implementation of CITES - https://cites.org/eng/legislation/National_Legislation_Project.
10
Member States were referring their answers to the provisions set out under EU law, while others were
referencing their own domestic legislation. In total, 16 Member States reported that national laws
allowed for easy amendment of national provisions to reflect the changes made in the CITES
Appendices. One Member State noted that their own domestic legislation stipulates that for any newly
Appendix I listed species, it is mandatory to submit an inventory for the holding of live specimens to
allow authorities to monitor these species (BE).
Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent,
practical, coherent and use-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens
Q.1.2.1a Standard operating procedures
All Member States have reported developing standard operating procedures for application for and
issuance of permits. 25 Member States reported that the procedures were publicly available.
Q.1.2.1b Electronic permitting
Electronic data management and paper-based permit issuance systems are available in all 28 Member
States. Only seven Member States reported having used electronic data exchange to some extent (AT,
CY, CZ, EL, FR, LT, LV).
Three Member States (CY, EL, LT) reported they have had electronic permit information exchange (e.g.
email data exchange of information) with the CITES MA of other countries, including Indonesia, the
Russian Federation, and other EU Member States. One Member State noted that an electronic
connection between the system delivering licences and CITES permits between France and
Switzerland is being finalised in the second half of 2019, which will enable automatic and systematic
exchange of CITES documents issued, including Customs data (FR), between the two countries.
Between 2015 and 2017, electronic permit data exchange between the CITES MA and Customs (e.g.
email data exchange of information) were available in six Member States (CY, CZ, EL, FR, LT, LV). In
addition, two Member States reported that electronic permits are used to cross borders with
electronic validation by Customs (AT, FR). One Member State reported that since 2015, the IT system
used to validate Customs declarations has been linked with the system delivering CITES documents,
which allows real-time monitoring of the use of French permits and certificates at borders (FR).
During 2015–2017, some Member States faced challenges in relation to the use of electronic
permitting systems. These included the verification of authenticity and validity of CITES permits and
certificates (EL), compliance with the different requirements for issuing CITES permits in the different
Member States (EL), and compatibility of computer systems (e.g. recognition of security certificates,
use of the same standards, mode of operation system), which requires intensive work to identify and
address disparities (FR). Another Member State raised technical problems of programmes for issuing
permits (SK).
Few Member States reported that an e-permitting system was already available in their country (BE).
A further 12 Member States plan to move towards e-permitting, including developing a system to
allow for electronic permit data exchange between the CITES MA and Customs of certain countries
and electronic validation by Customs (PT). Several Member States provided examples on what might
help to move towards e-permitting. These included:
11
co-operation with other Parties (e.g. Switzerland), and organisations including the UN
Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the European
Commission (CZ);
a common platform and/or system agreed with other Parties (EE);
compatible systems across Parties (NL);
complete list of security requirements that can be translated into computer language (ES);
an “Application Programming Interface” (API) format to allow Parties to update information
on source of specimens across different countries and a functional Electronic Permit
Information eXchange (EPIX) system which would allow improved data exchange (FR);
information exchange with those already using e-permitting and with national Customs offices
via the EU Single Window portal for Customs (SE, SI);
addressing financial and technical problems of the electronic system (SK);
additional resources and capacity (DE, IE, UK).
Q.1.2.2a* Development of simplified procedures
Under the Wildlife Trade Regulations, several simplified procedures have been developed11. These
include the Standard CITES form, as set out in Annex 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2012.
An export permit or re-export certificate is used instead of a special pre-Convention certificate or a
certificate of captive breeding or artificial propagation in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 2 and
paragraph 5 of CITES, respectively. In both cases source code “O” or source codes “A” or “C” are
verified on those permits. Pre-issued or partially completed permits and certificates for biological
samples, and for the (re-)export of dead specimens that are not listed in CITES Appendix I as set out
under Article 18 and Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, may also be issued by the
MA providing certain requirements have been met.
Twenty Member States reported having developed at least one simplified procedure for certain
provisions under CITES, with some Member States referencing the EU’s simplified procedures (DE, ES,
FR, IE, LV). It is unclear how many Member States answered positively to the questions in relation to
the simplified procedures developed under EU law or their own national procedures. Of the 20
Member States that responded positively, most developed procedures for issuance of export permits
or re-export certificates in accordance with CITES Article IV for specimens referred to in Article VII,
paragraph 4 (15) and issuance of certificates of captive breeding or artificial propagation in accordance
with Article VII, paragraph 5 (14). Fewer Member States reported having developed simplified
procedures where biological samples of the type and size specified in Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 12.3
(Rev. CoP16) are urgently required (12) and for the issuance of pre-Convention certificates or
equivalent documents in accordance with CITES Article VII, paragraph 2 (11).
Some Member States provided more specific details on the other cases judged by MAs that merit the
use of simplified procedures. Some examples include:
Where applications are made for import, export and re-export of certain species from certain
sources, the opinion of the CITES Scientific Authority (SA) should be applied uniformly (HR);
Travelling exhibition certificates, sample collections certificates, owner certificates for live
animals (IT);
11 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/referenceguide_en.pdf
12
Use of labels for exchanges of museum and herbarium specimens between registered
scientific institutions (ES); and
Musical instruments (SE).
Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with
decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties
Q.1.3.1a Special reporting requirements under CITES
Seventeen Member States responded to all relevant reporting requirements under CITES between
2015 and 2017, with fewer Member States only responding to some requirements (8).
Q.1.3.1b Difficulties encountered
Five Member States reported having difficulties when implementing specific CITES Resolutions and
Decisions within this reporting period (ES, FR, HR, LU, UK), with Spain noting that some Resolutions
and Decisions should be incorporated into EU legislation to improve implementation. Several concerns
focused on the up listing of species in the CITES Appendices. Three Member States raised concerns
regarding the implementation of CITES-listing of Dalbergia spp. and/or Guibourtia spp., which came
into force in January 2017 following the species’ listing to CITES Appendix II (HR, LU, UK). The UK
specifically noted that the listing led to issues regarding species identification, and enforcement
capacity issues in terms of increased communication with Range States and high number of seizures.
Luxembourg also encountered difficulties relating to the implementation of the up listing of the
African Grey Parrot Psittacus erithacus in CITES Appendix I. France noted that CITES control services
had experienced difficulties in compiling their annual reports on illegal trade as their current database
is not designed for this purpose (e.g. recording of the scientific name of the species), which requires
them to carry out specific enquires to meet the CITES requirements.
Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species.
Q.1.4.1a* Reviews of species for potential listing on the CITES Appendices
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 establishes an EU Scientific Review Group (SRG) consisting of
representatives from the Member States' SAs. The role of the SRG is to examine scientific questions
relating to the application of the Wildlife Trade Regulations in particular tasks relating to Articles 4.1.a,
4.2.a and 4.6 of the Regulation. According to the responses received, some Member States noted that
while no reviews were undertaken at a national level, authorities contributed to reviews in the wider
context of their appraisal by the EU through the SRG (IT, LV, PT, UK). For example, the UK’s SA for Flora
(Royal Botanic Gardens KEW) analysed eight flora species that were selected for review at SRG 83 as
a follow up from the UNEP-WCMC report SRG 81/9, to determine whether they met the criteria for
listing in EU Annex B.
Six Member States have undertaken national reviews on whether species would benefit from being
listed in the CITES Appendices between 2015 and 2017 (CZ, FR, LV, PL, PT, UK). For example, the Czech
Republic’s SA, together with the co-Chair of the IUCN Specialist Group on Giraffes and Okapi, prepared
a working summary document on the possible listing of Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis in the CITES
Appendices (CZ). France conducted reviews on Sea Cucumbers Holothuroidea, Spiders
Mygalomorphae and Songbirds Passeriformes, while Poland’s Ministry of the Environment
commissioned an expert study analysing qualifying criteria to CITES of Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus
and Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix. The report was commissioned due to significant international hunting
13
levels in neighbouring eastern countries (basing on hunting trophies brought to Poland), however, the
results were inconclusive, and it did not result in initiating a CITES listing proposal for CoP18.
Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings.
Q.1.5.1a-c* Scientific information for Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs)
Twenty Member States have undertaken surveys, studies or other analyses in relation to the
population status of CITES Appendix II species, and seven Member States provided information on
how many were conducted: 2–5 (FI, NL, RO); 6–10 (HR, PT); 11–20 (SI) and ca. 35 (HU). Only five
Member States reported having undertaken studies on trends and impacts of trade on Appendix II
species (ES, HR, LV, PT, UK). For Appendix I listed species, 15 Member States reported having
undertaken studies on the status of and trends in naturally occurring Appendix I species, while nine
Member States conducted studies on the impact of recovery plans. In both cases, the number of
studies ranged from one to four per Member State. Six Member States reported that the surveys,
studies or analyses have integrated relevant knowledge and expertise of local and indigenous
communities (DE, ES, HR, LV, SE, SK). A comprehensive list of the studies conducted is provided in
Annex 4 of this report.
Figure 1: Number of Member States which have undertaken scientific studies on CITES-listed species
in 2015–2017
Most Member States (17) have developed specific conservation measures or recovery plans for
naturally occurring CITES Appendix I listed species, such as Eurasian Otter Lutra lutra (DE, CZ, LV, NL),
eagles Aquila spp. (BG, PT), Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus (BG) and Iberian Lynx Lynx pardinus
(PT). A comprehensive list of these measures and recovery plans are provided in Annex 5. Member
States used the results of surveys, studies or other analyses in making Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs)
for a combination of purposes, mostly for changed management of the species (12) and discussions
with other stakeholders (11). These were also used for stricter domestic measures (10), revised
harvest/export quotas (9) and discussions with CITES MA (9). Fewer Member States used the results
for banning export of species (3).
Three Member States noted that these scientific studies are rarely used in the context of NDFs, as
wild-taken species are protected at national and at EU-level (e.g. EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, EU
Bird Directive 2009/147/EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97) and exports are strictly regulated (DE,
FR, UK). Another Member State reported that the results were used to determine SRG positive or
negative opinions on species imported into the EU (IE).
0 10 20 30
Integration of relevant knowledge andexpertise of local/indigenous communities
Impact of any recovery plans on Appendix Ispecies
Status/trend in naturally-occurringAppendix I species
Trends and impact of trade on Appendix IIspecies
Population status of Appendix II species
Number of Member States
14
Q.1.5.1d- e* Making of Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs)
Only three Member States (BE, ES, HR) confirmed having published NDFs that can be shared; Belgium
provided information on NDFs for timber imports from Central Africa12 and Spain noted the upcoming
publication of an NDF13. One Member State reported that native species are not in trade or exported
from the country and it has undertaken internal case-by-case studies on import applications of non-
native species into the country (DE).
Most Member States (22) used a combination of factors in the Resolution Conf. 16.7 (Rev. CoP17) on
Non-detriment Findings14. Consultations with relevant local, regional and international experts were
the most common factors taken into consideration (22), followed by scientific literature (21), scientific
surveys conducted at harvest locations and at sites protected from harvest and other impacts (21),
and national and international trade information (21). Other sources of information, such as ecological
risk assessments (17) and relevant knowledge of local and indigenous communities (14) were less
commonly used. One Member State noted NDFs are not required for exports as it does not normally
export wild-taken specimens of its native CITES-listed fauna (UK).
Q.1.5.2a-c* Standard procedures for making NDFs
Eleven Member States reported having adopted standard procedures for making NDFs in line with
Resolution Conf. 16.7 (Rev. CoP17). Several Member States mentioned the EU SRG Guidelines15 (DE,
DK, FR, LT) and resources available on the EU’s Communication and Information Resource Centre for
Administrations, Businesses and Citizens (CIRCACB) (BE, CZ, IE), as well as collecting information
through various sources including the CITES Trade Database and Species+ (BE, SI). Other examples of
the procedures are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Examples of procedures for making NDFs by Member States, 2015–2017.
BE Transmission by the scientific advisor of useful information to facilitate the delivering of an
NDF via a specific pre-filled “template application review” which was shared in the Biennial
Report 2013–2014
DE A nine-steps NDF guidance document for perennial plants16 (CoP 17 Inf. 45) and timber17;
A guideline for making NDFs for shark species18
ES A dedicated website on NDFs prepared by CITES SA19
UK Fauna: all relevant guidance when making NDFs including Conference Resolution Conf. 16.7
(Rev. CoP17) for wild-taken specimens. For exports of captive-bred specimens, such as
falcons, the NDF involves an examination of the breeding operation against Resolution Conf.
10.16 (Rev.) (as applied through Article 54 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/06).
12 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/com/pc/21/E-PC21-Inf-04.pdf 13 http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-especies/convenios-internacionales/ce-cites-dictamen-extraccion-no-perjudicial.aspx 14 https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-16-07-R17.pdf 15 Duties of the CITES SA and Scientific Review Group under Regulations (EC) No 338/97 and (EC) No 865/2006http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/srg/guidelines.pdf 16 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/InfDocs/E-CoP17-Inf-45.pdf 17 https://www.bfn.de/en/activities/species-conservation/species-conservation-legislation-and-conventions/cites/tree-species.html 18 https://cites.org/eng/prog/shark/sustainability.php 19 https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-especies/convenios-internacionales/ce-cites-dictamen-extraccion-no-perjudicial.aspx
15
Most Member States reported using the IUCN Checklist (21) and Resolution Conf. 16.7 (20) when
making NDFs, while fewer Member States reported using the 2008 NDF workshop (7) and the CITES
Virtual College (6). However, a number of Member States reported various other guidance that was
used, including information published by the EU SRG (DE, ES, LT, RO), Species+ (DK, EL, SK), published
literature and reports (BE, IE) and consultation with other EU Member States and discussion on NDFs
in the SRG (HU, SE).
Most Member States (AT, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK) reported that they
review and/or change the NDFs on a case by case basis. In addition, Finland reported they review NDFs
for exports of native CITES listed game species annually when new population data information
becomes available. One Member State noted that although scientific opinions for species, country,
and source are generally valid for many years, some decisions are valid only for specific cases (e.g.
source, country, quantity) and must be re-evaluated for further applications (BE). Another Member
State reported it would also review an NDF for a species-country combination if it has not seen an
application over the last three to five years or the application is for a different area of the country (UK).
Several Member States provided information on the circumstances where NDFs would be changed
including SRG and/or its opinions (BE, BG, PL, SI, UK) and new information or change of circumstances
e.g. population status and trends, trade, export quotas (NL, RO, SK). The SRG meets on average four
times a year and provides opinions whether imports/exports from and to the EU are allowed and the
opinion will normally be followed by the CITES SA of each Member State20. Therefore, the timing that
Member States review and/change the NDFs would also depend on the opinions of SRG.
Q.1.5.3a-b* Annual export quotas
Under the Wildlife Trade Regulations, the EU SRG can set export quotas which must be uniformly
implemented by all Member States. As a result, nine Member States reported having set annual export
quotas between 2015 and 2017, however all Member States referenced the quota set for the
European Eel Anguilla anguilla. In December 2010, following the Appendix-II listing of A. anguilla,
which came into force on 13 March 2009, the SRG concluded that at the time it was not possible to
make an NDF for the export of A. anguilla. Subsequently, a zero-import/export policy has been set for
the EU. On that basis, the EU CITES MAs have not been able to allow export of A. anguilla from the EU
and commercial trade in all commodities of A. anguilla to and from the EU has been banned from 3
December 2010 onwards21.
Some Member States reported having set annual export quotas for other species, including Sterlet
Acipenser ruthenus (HU) and Brown Bear Ursus arctos, Wolf Canis lupus, Wild Cat Felis silvestris (RO).
All those Member States that reported having set annual export quotas, reported that the quotas have
been set to ensure sustainable production and consumption. Romania reported that the annual export
quotas set for Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, and Felis silvestris are considered under the NDF process, with
quotas set not exceeding the annual growth of the population concerned. The export quotas are also
lower than harvest quotas approved.
20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/srg_en.htm 21 At the time of writing this ban is still in place.
16
Objective 1.6 Parties co-operate in managing shared wildlife resources.
Q.1.6.1a-1.6.2a Co-operation in management of shared resources
A total of 18 Member States reported that they are a signatory to bilateral and/or multilateral
agreements for co-management of shared species, including the Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) (DE, PL,
SK). Other examples of bilateral and multilateral agreements include:
Memorandum of understanding (MoU) on protection of Central European population of Great
Bustard Otis tarda under the CMS (CZ);
Ramsar Convention (DE, PL);
Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation (Netherlands, Denmark and Germany) (DE);
Management of fishing licences for Anguilla anguilla in the Miño river (ES, PT);
Co-ordination meetings on Pyrenean Fauna between Spain, France and Andorra (ES, FR);
Alpine Convention (Austria, Germany, France, Ital, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Slovenia and
Switzerland) and the EU (FR);
Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory birds of Prey in Africa and
Eurasia under the CMS (HR, SK); and
Transboundary projects co-funded by EU funds (e.g. LIFE, Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta
involving CY, EL, HR, IT, SI)22.
In addition, there are Wildlife Trade Regulations for the protection of certain species including the EU
Birds Directive 2009/47/EC23, the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC24 (DE, SI) and Council Regulation
(EC) 1100/2007, establishing measure for the recovery of the stock of European Eel25 (DE).
A total of 17 Member States have developed co-operative management plans, including recovery
plans for shared populations of CITES-listed species. These included the Eel Management Plan for the
Miño river shared basin between Spain and Portugal (PT), Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Sea
Harbour Porpoise (SAMBAH) involving all EU countries around the Baltic Sea26(PL), Action Plans for
Harbour Porpoises based on Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North
East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS)27(DK), and the Action Plan for the Conservation of
Marine Mammals (MMAP) in the Wider Caribbean Region28(NL). In addition, several projects under
the EU’s LIFE programmes 29 were mentioned by Slovenia and Slovakia, including, those for
populations of Ursus arctos in Slovenia, Croatia, Italy and Austria 30 , the Dinaric-SE Alps lynx
population in Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and Romania31 , Lynx pardinus32 (ES, PT) and the Caretta
22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5867 23 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm 24 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm 25 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/marine_species/wild_species/eel/management_plans_en 26 http://sambah.org/index.html 27 https://www.ascobans.org/en/documents/action-plans 28 http://www.cep.unep.org/publications-and-resources/promotional-material/publications/spaw/mmap/at_download/file 29 The LIFE programme is the EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action created in 1992. 30 http://dinalpbear.eu/project/ 31 https://www.lifelynx.eu/about-the-project/ 32 http://www.lynxexsitu.es/
17
caretta and Green Turtle Chelonia mydas (involving Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Slovenia) since
201633.
Q.1.6.3a Recipients of capacity building
Twenty Member States reported receiving capacity building from external sources during 2015–2017.
This was mostly received by SA staff (16 Member States) followed closely by Enforcement Authority
(EA) staff (14 Member States), and MA staff (11 Member States) in the form of oral or written guidance
and/or training. Three Member States reported that their CITES authorities received technical
assistance from external sources (LU, NL, PT), and in four Member States (BE, BG, HR, LU) traders and
the public received capacity building mostly in the form of oral and written guidance and technical
assistance. Three Member States reported that NGOs in their countries received some form of
capacity building from external sources (BG, EE, LU).
External sources providing this capacity building included other EU Member States’ CITES authorities,
the European Commission, the SRG, NGOs, UNEP-WCMC, TRAFFIC, the CITES Secretariat, national
CITES experts, the police and EU-TWIX. In several cases, capacity building was also provided by internal
sources such as national CITES authorities. Some examples of capacity building included seminars and
workshops on various topics including wildlife crime, NDFs, identification of timber species, other
CITES-related issues, training on identification of ivory and traditional Chinese medicines.
Q.1.6.3b Providers of capacity building
National authorities in 17 Member States provided some form of capacity building to other Range
States in this reporting period, mainly in the form of oral and written guidance (11), training (9), and
technical guidance (5) to CITES authority staff and traders. Four Member States also provided financial
assistance to CITES authorities, NGOs and the CITES sponsored delegates projects (BE, LV, NL, SE).
Several Member States provided details of their specific capacity building activities. For example,
guidance and technical assistance was provided to the musical industry and professionals (AT, FR),
auctioneers (FR) and Montenegro and Serbia (PT). Financial assistance was provided for the EU-TWIX
database (LV) and to NGOs such as the African Parks Network and TRAFFIC (NL). One Member State
reported technical advice was provided to the CITES SA in other EU Member States (IE). Several
trainings were provided as capacity building exercises:
In 2016, the Czech Republic provided assistance to Poland’s EA;
In 2015, France provided training on Holy Wood Bulnesia sarmientoi in Paraguay; in 2017 on
Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus fuscus in Colombia and on Vicugna Vicugna vicugna in
Peru;
Ireland provided training on artificial propagation definitions for plants in 2016; and
The UK provided training on species located in the Caucasus to enforcement officers in
Georgia.
Other capacity building examples included:
Contributing to the reports “State of the World’s Plants” 2016 and 2017 published by the Kew
Gardens (IE);
33 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5867
18
Participating in training and experience exchange seminars within review process for Lynx lynx,
Canis lupus, Lutra lutra and Ursus acrtos (LV);
Providing guidance, technical/financial assistance and training to forensic co-operation project in
Botswana and container control programme of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) in Kenya (NL);
Participating in a programme to support Serbian authorities in alignment with CITES standards
(PL);
Organising a conference entitled “Conference on Environmental Crime – necessity for Action Plan
on Fight against Environmental Crime” in 2016 (SK);
Spain celebrated the XII edition of the Masters’ degree in Management and Conservation of
Species in Trade: The International Framework organised by the International University of
Andalucía, Spain, held in 2016 and that traditionally takes place every two years. The edition as
attended by 26 students from 19 different countries; and
The UK hosted the annual transport task force meeting in November 2017 for the United for
Wildlife Transport Taskforce, including private sector businesses and leaders from the transport
industry34 (UK).
Q.1.6.3c Collaboration with other CITES Parties
Most Member States (26) have been involved in collaborative activities with other CITES Parties during
this reporting period, with the majority actively collaborating on information exchange and law
enforcement (see Figure 2, Table 4). One Member State noted that there is collaboration for habitat
management of the Nordic species but not for CITES-listed species (SE).
Figure 2. Frequency that Member States collaborated with other CITES Parties for the 2015–2017
period
34 https://www.unitedforwildlife.org/projects/transport-taskforce/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInqPol82Y4gIVzbXtCh0TzwxDEAAYASAAEgLh-vD_BwE
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Informationexchange
Monitoring/survey Habitatmanagement
Speciesmanagement
Law enforcement Capacity building
Nu
mb
er o
f M
emb
er S
tate
s
Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
19
Table 4. Examples of collaboration with other CITES Parties for the 2015–2017 period
Collaboration Topic
Information exchange Validity of CITES documents (BG, SI);
Species identification (BG);
Multinational actions and investigations (NL)
Meetings during the Management Committee, SRG, and
Enforcement Group and/or informal consultations via email, EU-
TWIX database and during international meetings (BE, HR, LT, PL,
SK);
Species management on Afrormosia Pericopsis elata with the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (BE);
Yearly meetings of CITES authorities of Central and Eastern
Europe were held up to 2015 (PL);
Information on breeders, investigations on legal origin, smuggling
and illegal trade of species within the EU (NL).
Monitoring/survey Eastern border monitoring survey (EE).
Law enforcement Interpol operations (EE);
Anti-poaching training for rangers in Gabon (UK).
Capacity building Workshops (EE, NL);
IWT Challenge Fund projects and the Darwin Initiative (UK).
Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade
Q.1.7.1a* Efforts to reduce illegal wildlife trade
In 2016, the EU adopted the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking 35 which sets out a
comprehensive plan for joined-up efforts to fight wildlife crime inside the EU, and for strengthening
the EU's role in the global fight against these illegal activities. The Action Plan runs until 2020 and is
being implemented jointly by the EU (Commission services, European External Action Services,
Europol, Eurojust) and its Member States. In their Implementation reports, all Member States
reported having an international enforcement strategy and or action plan to reduce the illegal wildlife
trade, with the majority noting this because of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking.
Twenty-two Member States reported engaging in formal international co-operation to reduce illegal
wildlife trade, with most of the Member States noting this was, in part, implemented through
attendance at EU Enforcement Group meetings. Several other Member States provided examples of
other types of formal international co-operation. These included:
Information exchange via the European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange (EU-
TWIX) (FR, HR, LV, NL, SK);
Participation in the Interpol Wildlife Crime Working Group (BE, DE);
Participation in Operations co-ordinated by Interpol and Europol (CY, DE, IT);
Participation in the Wildlife Enforcement Network Meeting at CITES CoP 17 (DE);
35 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/WAP_EN_WEB.PDF
20
Involvement in the intergovernmental Task Force on Illegal Killing, Taking and Trade of
Migratory Birds in the Mediterranean under the CMS (MIKT)36 (PT);
Several Member States reported have developed national enforcement strategies (16) and engaged
in formal interagency co-operation (16) between 2015 and 2017. Some examples included:
A national Enforcement Working Group, chaired by the CITES MA, made up of representatives
from different national enforcement agencies. The main objectives of this group are to
exchange information at national and international levels, evaluate measures in place and to
develop strategies for controls and training (BE);
Adoption of nature conservation and/or enforcement action plans for topics including the
illegal killing, trapping and trade of wild birds, prevention and combating crime (DE, EE, ES, PT,
SI, SK).
CITES intervention strategy for the Netherlands; yearly Customs priority plan; National
intelligence agenda (NL);
CITES National Taskforce (FR);
Agreement for co-operation between National Customs Agency, Bulgarian Food Safety
Agency and the Ministry of Environment and Water on increasing effectiveness of control over
the export, trade, transit and export of endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Agreement
for co-operation between the Customs authorities and the Ministry of Interior (BG);
Regular national interagency CITES enforcement committee meetings (HR);
Bilateral agreements between the Latvian CITES MA and Customs (LV);
National CITES Consultation Meetings are held five times a year with all Dutch government
authorities involved in CITES to exchange knowledge and align priorities and activities (NL);
Regular meetings twice a year of a ‘Standing Committee on Species and Biotope Conservation’
of the Bund/Länder Association for Nature Conservation (BLANA)37 in order to set focus areas
of CITES enforcement (DE); and
Specialised unit responsible for CITES-related enforcement including representatives from
governmental departments and EAs from Customs, police, CITES MA and prosecutors (SK).
Q.1.7.2a-b* Process or mechanism for reviewing enforcement strategy and activities
Thirteen Member States reported having a process or mechanism for reviewing their national
enforcement strategy and the activities implemented, while two reported this was under
consideration (HU, LU). For example, Hungary reported that the establishment and effective operation
of a National Environmental Security Task Force (NEST) was their future goal.
In addition, the European Commission reported on progress in implementing the EU Action Plan
against Wildlife Trafficking in its mid-term report published in October 2018, based also on
information submitted by Member States. Examples included:
yearly evaluation of national enforcement efforts on strategic and operational levels (NL); and
36 https://www.cms.int/en/taskforce/mikt 37 Germany is a federal state consisting of 16 so called ‘Länder’. Local and regional ‘Länder’ authorities have powers for issuing intra-Community certificates (for commercial use; for movement of live animals), to carry out investigations and for controlling trade within the EU. An important body to coordinate activities and to ensure the uniform application of regulations within Germany is the Standing Committee on ‘Species and Biotope Conservation’ of the “Bund/Länder” Association for Nature Conservation” (BLANA).
21
a dedicated CITES priority delivery group overseeing enforcement of wildlife priorities (UK)
Few Member States reported using the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime
(ICCWC) Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit (ES, LV, PT). Several Member States noted that
while the toolkit was a useful instrument, most aspects of the toolkit are covered by their own national
established procedures (DE, ES, FR, NL, SE). One Member State noted that a summary of the
information applicable to field work would be useful (PT).
Q.1.7.3a-c Criminal law and procedures
Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the
protection of the environment through criminal law38 sets out the obligations required by EU Member
States to implement criminal procedures relating to environmental offences at national level. Twenty-
seven Member States reported having law and procedures in place for investigating, prosecuting and
penalising CITES offences as a crime and 25 provided details of maximum penalties that may be
imposed. This information, combined with further details collected from Member States in previous
years, is summarised in Annex 6.
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”39. Through the EU Action Plan against Wildlife
Trafficking, Member States have committed to ensuring “in line with international commitments
made, that organised wildlife trafficking constitutes throughout the EU a serious crime under the UN
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”40.
Most Member States (18) reported that criminal offences, such as poaching, and wildlife trafficking
are recognised as serious crimes in their country. While 10 Member States reported that criminal
offences were not recognised as serious crimes between 2015 and 2017 (AT, DK, EL, HU, IE, IT, LU, PL,
SI, SK), some of these Member States (AT, EL, PL, SK) provided details of national legislation that does
seem to allow for at least four years imprisonment. Those Member States that reported that poaching
and wildlife trafficking is recognised as serious crime in the country did not provide a comprehensive
picture on how their legislation corresponds to the international commitment (e.g. CY, RO). This issue
is also raised in the Annex of the 2018 mid-term progress report on the EU Action Plan against Wildlife
Trafficking41.
Most Member States (19) reported they have capacity to use forensic technology to support the
investigation of CITES offences. Table 5 provides a summary of the samples from CITES-listed species
that were collected and submitted to an appropriate forensic analysis facility.
Table 5. Examples of samples from CITES-listed species that were collected and submitted for
forensic analysis by Member States in 2015-2017
AT African Elephant tusks.
38 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0099&from=EN 39 https://www.unodc.org/documents/middleeastandnorthafrica/organised-crime/UNITED_NATIONS_CONVENTION_AGAINST_TRANSNATIONAL_ORGANIZED_CRIME_AND_THE_PROTOCOLS_THERETO.pdf 40 EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, 2016 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/WAP_EN_WEB.PDF 41 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/annex_progress_report_EU_action_plan_wildlife_trafficking_en.pdf
22
BE Twenty-two analyses of birds were carried out by a DNA testing laboratory in the
Netherlands in 2015–2017 in order to assess the legal origin of bird juvenile specimens
claimed to be hatched and bred in captivity;
Samples of caviar seized at the airport were sent to an institute in Germany in 2015;
and
A two-year study on analysis of bushmeat seized at the airport to assess the wild and/or
CITES species concerned was commissioned in 2017.
CZ DNA analysis of liquids containing protected species and paternity testing.
EE DNA analysis of Canis lupus was conducted by the Estonian Forensic Science Institute.
ES DNA analysis for Anguilla anguilla, some reptiles, and parentage of birds of prey.
FR Radiocarbon dating and DNA analysis of rhino horns and elephant ivory.
MT DNA analysis was used to establish parentage of birds declared as captive bred.
PL DNA analysis of Anguilla anguilla was carried out in 2015 after frozen eels were
confiscated from a car on a road on export.
UK Radiocarbon dating of leopard skins, ivory and tiger skin. Species identification testing
of birds of prey, big cats, eel, and otter.
Q.1.7.3 d-e Multi-disciplinary law enforcement operations
CITES authorities in 21 Member States participated in or initiated some multi-disciplinary law
enforcement operations targeting CITES-listed species during this period. A number of Member States
provided a summary of the operations including Operation COBRA 3 in 2015 (BE, PL, SK, UK), Operation
Thunderbird in 2017 (BE, BG, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, UK) and Operation Tembo in 2017 (BE, ES,
FR, HR, IT, SE, SK). Other examples of multi-disciplinary law enforcement operations mentioned
include:
Joint federal bi-monthly operations at different airports in the country in 2015, 2016 and 2017
to detect illegal products brought back in the EU by passengers coming from third countries
(BE).
Operation against trafficking of live specimens of Anguilla anguilla conducted by Greek and
Spanish authorities (CITES, Customs authorities, Police) in 2017 supported by Europol and
Eurojust (EL)
Operation Parum: investigation started in 2017 when adverts of primates on several web
portals for sale were found (ES).
Several Member States provided details of some lessons learned following these operations. These
included the ability to acquire information on organised criminal networks (FR), that awareness was
raised with enforcement agencies officers and traders alike which may prevent possible further
violations (LV, HU), and that it provided the opportunity to share best practices, promote co-operation
among law enforcement agencies with a multi-disciplinary approach and to understand how to
improve the rate of detection of illegal activities (IT).
Most Member States (21) have developed a standard operating procedure among relevant agencies
for submitting information related to CITES offences to Interpol and/or the Wold Customs
Organization (WCO).
23
Q.1.7.3 f-g Legislative provisions for CITES offences and capacity
A total of 21 Member States reported having one or more legislative provisions that can be applied to
the investigation, prosecution and/or sentencing of CITES offences. Most Member States have
legislative provisions for general crime (20), predicate offence (16), asset forfeiture (19) international
co-operation in criminal matters (18) organised crime (19), and specialised investigation techniques
(15). Some Member States provided further details on the specialised investigation techniques used,
which included phone tapping (BE, SI), undercover operations (SI), controlled deliveries (DE).
Only 15 Member States reported that they have institutional capacity to implement the legislative
provisions that can be applied to the investigation, prosecution and/or sentencing of CITES offences.
Two Member States raised issues concerning lack of experienced or specialist staff for investigation of
this kind of crime (CZ, SK), while CY highlighted that training of enforcement officers and judges is a
major capacity-building need.
Q.1.7.4 a-c* Risk assessment and intelligence used
Through the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, Member States have committed to have
common risk-based assessment of EU-wide priorities and enforcement priorities defined at national
level. Most Member States (26) confirmed using risk assessments to some extent (Figure 3). Belgium
noted that risk and intelligence assessments are used mainly by Customs during controls of passengers,
cargo shipments and postal parcels, but also by the CITES MA when evaluating the applications for
CITES documents and by CITES Inspection Service. Another Member State noted that risk assessment
of different species and products is based on the information from EU-TWIX and Customs risk analysis
and intelligence asset is used at border controls (EL).
The number of Member States which used criminal intelligence to inform investigations into illegal
trade in CITES-listed species was slightly less (23), and there are five Member States which rarely or
never used criminal intelligence for such purposes (Figure 3). One Member State noted that CITES
authorities have an internal “blacklist” of persons involved in CITES infringements which contains all
pertinent information related to offenders and available electronically to CITES MA and inspectors
(BE). Greece noted that criminal intelligence is derived from data from the EU-TWIX.
Figure 3. Frequency to use risk assessment and criminal intelligence by Member States in 2015–2017
Always; 7
Very often; 12
Sometimes; 7
Never; 1
No information;
1
Frequency to use risk assessment
Always; 3
Very often; 8
Sometimes; 10
Rarely; 3
Never; 2
No information;
4
Frequency to use criminal intelligence
24
Most Member States (22) confirmed having institutional capacity to analyse information gathered on
illegal trade in CITES-listed species, while four Member States reported they lack the capacity (CY, HU,
LU, SK). One Member State noted although there is no specific analyst that collects information on
illegal trade, information is collected from EU-TWIX, TRAFFIC reports, statistics or compiled by
inspection service (BE).
Q.1.7.4 d-e Supply/demand side activities to address illegal trade
Thirteen Member States reported to have implemented supply-side activities to address illegal trade
in CITES-listed species during 2015–2017. For the demand side activities, 14 Member States have
implemented relevant activities during the period and one Member State reported that activities are
under development (BG). One Member State reported to have funded projects undertaking demand
reduction activities on elephant, rhino, pangolin and tiger in Viet Nam and China between 2015 and
2017 (UK).
Q.1.7.5 a-c Seizures and administrative measures/criminal prosecutions/court actions
Twenty-six Member States imposed administrative measures, criminal prosecutions or other court
actions during 2015–2017. CITES-related violations were penalised through administrative measures
such as fines, bans and suspensions in 23 Member States, criminal prosecutions in 21 Member States
and other court actions in 14 Member States. Several Member States provided examples of fines,
prosecutions and court actions from this reporting period (Table 6). Further details of significant
seizures are not provided here as information on EU seizures are analysed annually and presented to
the EU Enforcement Group as its six-monthly meetings.
Table 6. Examples of fines, prosecutions and court actions for CITES-related offences reported by EU
Member States for the 2015–2017 period
Case details Sanctions
BE Three individuals illegally exporting 1900
seahorses Hippocampus spp. (App. II/Annex
B) from Sierra Leone to China via Belgium
(sentence in 2017)
15-month prison sentence (half effective)
and fine of EUR 6000
Illegal import of Pericopsis elata sawn wood
(sentence in 2016)
6-month prison sentence and fine of
EUR60 000 (EUR6000 effective and the rest
with a delay of one year)
BG Two court cases of illegal import of 45 Grey
Parrots and two Pygmy Hippos.
Conviction
CZ Illegal import of reptiles including 211 CITES-
listed specimens
1-year prison sentence (suspended for 18
months) and fine of CZK200 000 (ca.
EUR7765)
Illegal trade in hunting trophies of Ursus
arctos
6-month prison sentence (suspended for 18
months) and fine of CZK50 000 (ca. EUR1940)
DE Illegal imports of Nard oil Nardostachys
grandiflora from Nepal in 2015
Fine of EUR6300
EL Illegal imports of two dead Grivet monkeys
Chlorocebus aethiops (App. II/Annex B) found
in luggage at the airport in 2016
12-month prison sentence and
administrative penalty of EUR 3000
25
Seizure of 25 kg of caviar Acipenser baerii
concealed inside vehicle in 2017
11-month prison sentence and fine of
EUR14 634
ES Illegal introduction of two live primates in
2017
Fine of EUR1080, confiscation of the
specimens and prohibition of hunting for 16
months as well as 2-month prison sentence
for animal abuse
MT Illegal imports of an Alligatoridae spp.
watchstrap from Switzerland
Fine of EUR466 fine and confiscation of the
watchstrap
PT Illegal trade in parrots 1.5-year, 3-year and 4.5-year prison
sentences and fines of EUR10 000,
EUR15 000 and EUR20 000 for three
individuals
UK Offering elephant ivory online for sale 7-month prison sentence (suspended for 18
months)
Q.1.7.5.d Methods used for disposal of confiscated specimens
Most Member States used a combination of methods for disposing of confiscated specimens (live,
bodies, parts or derivatives) with transfer to public zoos or botanical gardens being the most common
method (24). Several Member States also use designated rescue centres to dispose of confiscated
specimens (14), while fewer transfer specimens to approved private facilities (13), return the
specimen to the country of export (7) or had to resort to euthanasia (5). Some Member States
provided examples of other methods of disposal, such as:
being kept with CITES MA, SA or Customs (CY, DK, LV, SI)
used as samples for education and training purposes or awareness raising (DK, EE, FI, LV, PL,
SI, UK)
donated to museums (MT, SE, UK)
destruction (DE, LV, NL, SE, SI)
public sale of seized Appendix II/Annex B species e.g. Pygeum barks, African Cherry Prunus
africana and reptile skin (BE)
Some Member States identified challenges in disposing of confiscated specimens, including:
costs of maintenance (AT, DK, ES, HR, NL, SE)
lack of space and capacity to keep seized animals and plants (BE, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HR, LT, LV, PL)
difficulties in finding a facility to keep seized animals within a short period of time (FR)
veterinary or phytosanitary issues (DE)
difficulty in returning to country of export as the country of origin is often unknown (HR)
animal welfare and diseases (DE)
Three Member States provided examples of good practices such as dedicated rescue centres prepared
for housing seized or confiscated animals and plants (HU, SK) and legal provisions for cost recovery
where offenders can be responsible for bearing the costs of appropriate disposal (NL).
26
Objective 1.8. Parties and the Secretariat have adequate capacity-building programmes in
place.
Q.1.8a-c Capacity building programmes in place
Most Member States have some information resources or training in place for capacity building (21
Member States), especially to support enforcement officers (20) and permit officers (18). Information
resources or training was less available to support the making of NDFs (14) and seven Member States
reported to have no information resources or training in place (BG, CY, IE, LT, LU, MT, RO).
Member State responses suggest that the CITES Virtual College and ICCWC Wildlife and Forest Crime
Toolkit were rarely used for capacity building by Member States (eight and two Member States,
respectively). One Member State noted that CITES officers require training for both the Wildlife Trade
Regulations and domestic legislations as they are somewhat different to one another (DE). Bulgaria
also reported using training materials available for EU Member States at CIRCABC (Communication
and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses and Citizens) and EU-TWIX platform.
GOAL 2: SECURE THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MEANS FOR THE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION
Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national and international levels to ensure
compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention.
Q.2.2.1* Approved service standards for MA, SA, EA
Of all CITES authorities across Member States, MAs were those with the most robust service standards
and performance targets, for which some were published. The MAs were reportedly staffed with
sufficiently skilled individuals for their respective role, were sufficiently funded and have enough staff
capacity to effectively implement their activities.
Management Authorities
According to Article 8.3 of Commission Regulation No. 865/2006, MAs should decide on the issuance
of permits and certificates within one month of the date of submission of a complete application. As
a result, most Member States reported that these service standards are applicable for their MAs (23),
however, five Member States reported the contrary. This may be because these Member States were
reporting on whether additional national service standards were in place, other than those required
under EU law. Of those 23 Member States that reported to have service standards for their MAs, 13
set performance targets, however only two of these Member States publish the results (LT, SI).
Performance targets ranged from issuing permits within one month, as specified under EU law (DK,
FR, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL), to two weeks from receipt of application (AT), to between one and five working
days (LV). Most Member States that reported on their performance against these targets noted they
were successfully met; Ireland noted that 97% of all permits and certificates were issued within 30
days, while Latvia noted that approximately 95% of applications were answered between their one to
five working day target.
Between 2015 and 2016, the Netherlands reported that 89% of permits and certificates were issued
on time, however in 2017, this declined to 67%. Between 2015 and 2017, there were also several
Member States that noted a dip in performance levels between these years (BE, BG, CZ, DK, EL, LT,
NL, PT, SE, UK) for reasons mainly attributed to staff capacity (10), availability of funding (2) and
shortage of skills (1). Belgium specifically stated that they were sometimes unable to decide on
27
issuance of permits and certificates within one month due to the influx of applications after the
uplisting of Psittacus erithacus to Appendix I following CoP17. Furthermore, some Member States
noted they either did not have enough funding (CY, EL, ES, LT) staff capacity (BE, CY, EL, ES, IE, LT, RO)
or skills (CY, IE, LT) for their MA to function effectively.
Scientific Authorities
Eleven Member States reported having approved service standards for their SAs’ (BE, CZ, DE, ES, HR,
LT, NL, PL, PT, SE, UK), primarily in terms of response time, which ranged from three working days to
30 days. According to the EU guidelines on duties of the CITES SAs and the SRG under the Wildlife
Trade Regulations (EC) No. 337/97 and (EC) No. 865/2006, direct consultation by the SAs with the
CITES Authorities of exporting countries should be responded to within 10 working days so as not to
prolong the process unnecessarily.
Three Member States reported that service standards for their SA’s follow this timeframe (DE, ES, UK),
while other Member States implement these service standards between two and three weeks (CZ, HR,
PL, SE). In the UK, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), as UK SA for fauna, is required to
provide scientific advice on 90% of CITES licence applications within 5 working days, or 3 working days
for priority cases. The UK CITES SA for flora, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has a Service Level Agreement
with the MA (Animal and Plant Health) to fulfil their duty as a SA in terms of Services and Quality
Assurance when providing advice on permits. Kew is required to advise on 97% of referrals /permits
within 5 working days. Furthermore, Lithuania reported that any response to CITES MA or Customs
must be delivered within 30 days.
Four Member States reported they had performance targets for these service standards (LT, PT, SE,
UK). Lithuania, Portugal and the UK noted that performance for 2015 to 2017 was between 90 and
100%. The UK indicated that JNCC were meeting service standards despite an increase in the number
of referrals to them (16 229 consultations between April and September 2017, compared to 11 969
consultations over the same period of the previous year). This increase in the UK is assumed to be the
direct result of changes made to the CITES Appendices at CoP17 which saw the inclusion of Psittacus
erithacus in CITES Appendix I and the consequent EU requirement for any commercial transactions
within the EU to be covered by an Article 10 certificate. Five Member States reported that they were
unable to meet their performance targets between 2015 and 2017, mainly due to staff capacity (4),
availability of funding (2), shortage of skills (2). Furthermore, 10 Member States noted they either did
not have sufficient funding (BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, LT, RO), staff capacity (CY, CZ, EE, LT, LU) or skills
(BE, CY, LT, RO) for their SA to function effectively.
Enforcement Authorities
Ten Member States reported having approved service standards for their EAs (BE, CZ, EE, ES, IT, LT,
MT, PT, SK, UK). For example, in Belgium, the CITES Inspection Service dealing with enforcement has
internal procedures to standardise decisions in the framework of controls and irregularities. The UK
has nationwide service standards for all policing (including enforcement of CITES crimes) but noted
that no specific approved service standards are applicable for CITES offences alone. Of the Member
States that have approved standards, four have set performance targets (EE, LT, MT, PT); for example,
Estonia set yearly priorities which EAs should adhere to. Four Member States reported they were
unable to meet their performance targets between 2015 and 2017 due to staff capacity (4), availability
of funding (2) and/or shortage of skills (1). Furthermore, 12 Member States noted they either did not
28
have sufficient funding (CY, DE, EL, ES, IE, LT, MT, RO, SI, SK), staff capacity (BG, CY, DE, EL, ES, IE, LT,
PL, RO, SI, SK) or skills (CY, DE, IE, LT, PL, SI, SK) for their EA to function effectively.
Q.2.2.2a Activities undertaken to enhance effectiveness of CITES implementation at national level
Twenty Member States reported having carried out at least one activity to enhance the effectiveness
of CITES implementation at national level. Fourteen Member States reported having hired more staff
to increase capacity, and having purchased technical equipment for implementation, monitoring
and/or enforcement. A further 11 Member States reported developing implementation tools.
One Member State reported the launch in March 2015 of a new online application system for the
submission of CITES documents (BE). This electronic system has proven efficient and successful, with
more than 24 000 CITES document issued in this way between March 2015 and 2017 in Belgium. Other
specific activities included regular training (BG, IT) and the distribution of the CITESwoodID guide42 (a
tool for the identification of CITES timber species) and accompanying instruments, to aid enforcement
officers (EL).
The Netherlands reported making improvements to their data systems and two Member States
provided technical equipment to aid police and inspectors (BE, ES). Spain’s Civil Guard’s Nature
Protection Service (SEPRONA) provided equipment including location devices and image capturing
equipment, to aid police investigations. Furthermore, with the creation of a new CITES Inspection
Service in Belgium, micro-chip readers, equipment for capturing animals, marking ivory tusks and
collecting samples, were provided.
Q.2.2.2b Budget for CITES authorities
Seven Member States reported having increased the budget for at least one of their CITES authorities
(BE, CZ, LT, LV, NL, SE, SK); Latvia was the only Member State that reported having increased the
budget for all their CITES authorities between 2015 and 2017. Most Member States reported that
budgets had remained stable across the reporting period, while four reported a decrease (AT, EL, LT,
UK).
Q.2.2.2c International development funding assistance to increase level of implementation
All Member States either reported not having been able to use international development funding
assistance to increase the level of implementation across their Management, Scientific or EAs or that
it was not applicable.
Q.2.2.2d Level of priority for enhancing the effectiveness of CITES implementation at national level
Member States reported varying levels of priority for enhancing the effectiveness of CITES
implementation at a national level. However, 10 Member States reported at least one of the below
mentioned activities were not a priority at national level (AT, BE, BG, CY, ES, FI, HR, LT, SE, SI).
The highest level of priority was given to the hiring of more staff, with nine Member States reporting
this as high priority (AT, BE, BG, EL, ES, HR, PL, RO, UK) and 11 Member States reporting this as a
medium priority (CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, NL, SK). The second highest level of priority was
given to the development of implementation tools; five Member States reported this as a high priority
(BG, ES, FR, RO UK) while a further 14 Member States reported it as medium (CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, HR,
42 https://www.bfn.de/en/activities/species-conservation/species-conservation-legislation-and-conventions/cites/technical-guidance-for-cites-implementation.html
29
HU, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK). Both the purchase of new technical equipment for implementation,
monitoring and enforcement, and e-permitting were of a similar priority across Member States.
Overall, five Member States reported at least one of these activities were a high priority between 2015
and 2017 (DK, EL, FR, RO, UK), while 17 Member States reported these to be a medium priority (CZ,
DE, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, UK). Some Member States also reported other
activities as a priority; raising awareness on CITES (NL), especially among the judiciary (AT), governance
(LU), training for all authorities (LV, RO), and workshops (RO).
Q.2.2.2e Operation systems for managing species/trade information and NDFs
Overall, 23 Member States reported that operational systems for managing species and trade
information as well as NDFs were available, while three Member States reported that such systems
were being developed for NDFs (AT, DE, HR). Belgium noted that their operational systems for
gathering species information were available via the CITES checklist43 and Species+44, for legal and
illegal trade information these were available from the CITES Trade Database and the EU-TWIX45
database, respectively. The remaining Member States reported that no operational systems were
available.
Q.2.2.3a-d Raising funds for CITES implementation and use of revenue
Twenty-three Member States charge fees for CITES related matters. Most charge for issuance of CITES
documents (22) and for licensing or registration of operations that produce CITES species (13), with
fewer charging for other services, such as use of CITES-listed species (7), administrative procedures
(6), shipment clearance (2), harvesting of CITES-listed species (2) and assignment of quotas for CITES-
listed species (1). Three Member States reported charging fees for other services including the
issuance of EU certificates (ES, PL) and registration of live mammal, bird and reptile CITES-listed
species (LV).
Of those Member States that reported charging fees for CITES related matters, 21 noted that a fee
schedule was publicly available. Fifteen Member States either provided a link to an official website or
national legislation which contains information on fees charged, while six Member States provided
more specific details on the amounts charged. These ranged from approximately less than EUR5 to
EUR60, with the highest amount charged for the issuance of CITES documents. For example, the
maximum fee charged in Belgium is EUR40 for applications for ownership, travelling exhibitions and
sample collection certificates. In Hungary, approximately EUR33 is charged for the issuance of import,
export and re-export certificates whereas in Lithuania, EUR46 is charged. In Latvia, the fees charged
for issuance of CITES documents depend on the purpose code, for example commercial trade fees are
charged at approximately EU12, and in the Netherlands, EUR60 are charged for the initial registration
of caviar labels.
Of those Member States charging fees for one of the services described, three reported that the
revenues generated are used entirely for the implementation of CITES (BE, IT, SE), and eight that the
fees are partly used for this purpose (EE, EL, HR, LV, PL, PT, SI, SK). Two Member States noted that the
revenues generated from these fees are either allocated to a core budget used to finance staff
43 A website developed by the CITES Secretariat to allow Parties to search for more than 35,000 species of animals and plants and their degree of protection. 44 A website developed by UNEP-WCMC and the CITES Secretariat, designed to assist Parties with implementing CITES, CMS and other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). 45 European Union Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange.
30
members and/or specific projects related to CITES (BE, SI). A further seven Member States reported
that revenues were not used at all for the implementation of CITES (AT, BG, ES, HU, LT, MT, NL).
Some Member States reported charging user fees to raise funds for CITES management (BE, IT, PT, SI
and the UK). Furthermore, only six Member States reported that any fees charged recover the full
economic cost of issuing permits (BG, DE, EL, IT, LT, PT). Two Member States (DE, IT) reported they
had case studies on how fees were charged and how these revenues were used, however neither
Member State provided further details.
Very few Member States reported using innovative financial mechanisms to raise funds for CITES
implementation (BE, LV); Belgium reported that public sale of seized CITES Appendix II/Annex B
specimens as an original method for generating revenue. For example, in 2017, the sale of 850 kg of
Prunus africana bark and 35 pairs of boots made from CITES-listed reptiles was initiated. Latvia also
reported having incorporated CITES-related objectives into projects funded by the national
government or through EU funding.
Q.2.2.4a-b Use of incentive measures to implement CITES
Twelve Member States reported using incentive measures46 to implement the Convention with the
majority using compensatory measures (BG, CZ, DE, HR, LT, LU, LV, SI, SK) and due diligence (BE, BG,
FR, HR, LT, LU, LV, RO). Five Member States reported providing compensation measures for damage
caused by selected CITES-listed species, such as Canis lupus and Ursus arctos, to livestock and
domesticated animals (CZ, DE, LT, LV, SK), as well as, bee colonies, fish in aquaculture operations and
hunting game in areas where prevention measures are in place (LV, LT). Fewer Member States
reported using certification (BG, FR, HR, LT, LU, LV) and enforcement incentives (BG, LT, LU, LV, RO),
while four or less reported using cost recovery or environmental charges, communal property rights
and auctioning of quotas.
Only 11 Member States provided an answer on whether incentives harmful to biodiversity had been
eliminated; the majority said completely or somewhat (8), while the remaining Member States
reported either very little (2) or not at all (1).
Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national and international levels to
implement capacity-building programmes
Q.2.3.1a-b Capacity building activities
Between 2015 and 2017, 24 Member States reported having carried out at least one activity to
increase capacity without the assistance of the CITES Secretariat. Nine Member States reported having
conducted two to five initiatives, with fewer Member States implementing between six and 20
activities (12) or more than 20 (3). Notably, only one Member State conducted a capacity building
activity with assistance from the CITES Secretariat (ES).
Several Member States provided details on their specific capacity building activities, for example the
development of implementation tools, purchasing of technical equipment for monitoring and
enforcement efforts (EL). Member States also developed and engaged in raising awareness events for
the public, such as “National CITES day” (NL), permanent exhibitions of seized specimens, distribution
46 Defined as “Social and economic incentives that promote and regulate sustainable management of and responsible trade in, wild flora and flora and promote effective enforcement of the Convention”. The intent of such measures is not to promote wildlife trade as such, but rather to ensure that any wildlife trade undertaken is conducted in a sustainable manner.
31
of materials for Wildlife Day (SI), distribution of leaflets and posters on CITES issues, oral and written
guidance to the public (EL), and relevant authorities participating in tourist fairs (EE).
Training was also provided to various authorities and stakeholders, including CITES and wildlife
inspectors (ES, UK), Customs and enforcement officers (ES, HR, LT, LV, PL, SE, SK), Regional MAs (EL),
SAs (LV), prosecutors (SE), veterinary and phytosanitary inspection services (HR), antiques dealers,
zoos and museums (ES). Topics covered ranged from species identification (DE, IT), legislative
requirements and implementation of CITES (CZ, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT) and permitting systems (EL).
Several Member States also developed guidance on topics such as the making of NDFs (AT, DE),
controls on captive breeding facilities (AT) and legislative status and photos of CITES-listed species for
use by Regional CITES MA and EAs (EL).
Other capacity building examples included:
Running a Masters’ programme dedicated to the Management, Conservation and Control of
Species in International Trade (ES);
Attendance at the two-week course “Wildlife Trafficking Investigators Programme” which
involved training on planning methods and techniques for conducting successful crime
investigations i.e. interview techniques and undercover operations (HU);
Police Wildlife Crime Officers (PWCO) training seminars for local officers to understand CITES
documents, requirement and their enforcement (UK);
Development of timber identification tool CITESwoodID (DE);
CITES MA running lectures to legal and/or natural persons operating with animal facilities,
such as hotels for pets, pet shops, organisers of exhibitions, as well as wildlife traders (SI).
Development and distribution of electronic CITES Newsletter (“Artenschutz-Info des BfN”) to
over 550 recipients in Germany but also to the CITES Management Authorities of Austria and
Switzerland which provides information on recent developments in CITES legislation,
significant prosecution cases, court cases, ongoing illegal trade trends. During the reporting
period all together 11 newsletters were issued, 4 in 2015, 3 in 2016 and 4 in 2017.
Q.2.3.1c Capacity building needs
Twenty-one Member States reported needing at least one capacity building activity for one of their
CITES authorities between 2015 and 2017. Most Member States required oral and written
advice/guidance, training and technical assistance, while fewer needed financial assistance. Only two
Member States reported needing other capacity building for their CITES authorities; these were
further education opportunities for MAs (SE), methods and guidance on the making of NDFs (SE) and
support from specialised experts on CITES legislation (PL) for SAs.
Some Member States provided more specific details on their capacity needs. For example, technical
assistance for SAs from specialised experts on ivory and taxidermy (BE) and on the making of NDFs
specifically for widespread commercially traded species, such as snowdrops Galanthus spp. (HR).
Other examples targeting the MAs included training on assessing captive breeding operations (HR),
Technical and financial assistance on e-permitting (IE, SK) and awareness raising and demand
reduction (SK). For EAs, Lithuania specified they needed guidance on disposal of seized and
confiscated specimens of species of fauna (LT).
32
Nineteen Member States reported needing at least one capacity building activity for traders/other
user groups, NGOs, the public or other stakeholders. Most of these capacity needs were for
traders/other users in terms of oral and written guidance (13) and training (9). Oral and written
guidance and training were also required for the public and NGOs. Croatia also noted that training was
required for security services at national airports and national freight forwarding services and further
awareness needs to be raised with the public.
GOAL 3 Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and achieving relevant
globally-agreed goals and targets
Objective 3.1 Measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce duplication between CITES
and other MEAs
Q.3.1.1a-c Funding from international financial mechanisms
Four Member States reported having received funding from international financial mechanisms and
other related institutions to develop activities that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable
development elements (CZ, HR, LT, PT). These included EHP Funds regarding Saker Falcon Falco
cherrug and Lutra lutra (CZ), World Bank Project, EU Natura 2000 Integration Project (HR) and the LIFE
programme (PT). Of these countries, three Member States reported funding from these mechanisms
and institutions were stable (HR, LT, PT), while the funding increased for one Member State (CZ).
Q.3.1.2 Technical or financial assistance
Eight Member States reported having provided technical or financial assistance to another country in
relation to CITES between 2015 and 2017. Some Member States provided extensive details, in addition
to information on capacity building and assistance under related questions such as Q1.6.3b and
Q1.6.3c. Technical or financial assistance on law enforcement provided includes those to Botswana
and Kenya (NL), Montenegro and Serbia (PT) and Malawi and Georgia (UK).
Other technical assistance provided by Member States included:
Participation in a workshop on amphibians and reptiles in Colombia (ES)
Training and campaigns to reduce consumption of rhino horn in Viet Nam (FR)
Programme for involvement of local communities in the sustainable management of natural
resources through ecological monitoring in Cameroon (FR)
Awareness raising of wildlife crime in Benin (FR)
Financial assistance included providing funds for:
co-funding workshops on livelihoods in Africa (AT)
African Elephant Fund (BE, FR)
EU-TWIX (BE)
Museum for Central Africa for sustainable timber production and legal trade in Pericopsis
elata (BE)
VZW Funds Virunga Belgium (parc Virunga) (BE)
ICCWC (FR)
support to creating naturalist clubs to change preferences in consumption of bushmeat of
endangered species in Gabon (FR)
33
Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally.
Q.3.2.1 Awareness raising activities
During 2015–2017, CITES authorities from all Member States were involved in awareness raising
activities to bring about better awareness of the requirements of CITES by the wider public and
relevant user groups. Newspaper articles, brochures and leaflets were the most common method for
raising awareness among the wider public (25), followed by press releases and websites (23).
Alternatively, presentations were the most common method for raising awareness among relevant
use groups (20), followed by newspaper, brochure and leaflets (12). Other awareness raising activities
were provided through an information stand at regional or international tourism and consumer fairs
(DE), travel App (NL), a conference to celebrate the 40th anniversary of CITES (PL), educational events
at a zoo (SK) and regular meeting with traders of CITES-listed species (UK).
Q.3.2.2a-b Number of visits to the CITES website
Staff of the CITES MAs of most Member States consulted the CITES website daily (16) or weekly (11)
during 2015–2017. Staff of SA and EA used the CITES website less frequently with 17 and 12 Member
States reporting “daily” or “weekly”, respectively.
Objective 3.3 Measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce duplication between CITES
and other MEAs
Q. 3.3.1 Synergies in the implementation of CITES, other biodiversity-related and other relevant
agreements
Seventeen Member States reported having taken measures to achieve co-ordination and reduce
duplication of activities between the national CITES authorities and national focal points for other
multilateral environmental agreements during this reporting period. These measures include
biodiversity-related Conventions administered by the same governmental department (DE, DK, ES, HU,
IE, LT, LV, PL, PT, UK). Co-ordination was also achieved through regular meetings/information
exchange to discuss activities relevant to different multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) (FI,
FR, RO) and through a mailing list for information exchange between experts in charge of different
MEAs (BE).
Q.3.3.2a-d Projects, development goals or scientific and technical programmes that integrate
CITES requirements
The number of international projects which reportedly integrate CITES issues varied among Member
States. These ranged from one to ten projects (AT, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SK) and more than 10 (DE,
UK). The UK did not provide a specific number but included a link to various details of Illegal Wildlife
Trade Challenge Fund projects47. Another Member State mentioned they have contributed on a yearly
basis to the African Elephant Fund (BE). The number of national level projects integrating CITES issues
implemented in the country also varied, ranging from one to ten projects (AT, DE, HR, LV, PT, SE, SK,).
The UK did not provide a specific number but mentioned a series of IWT Conference as an example of
national level projects.
Twenty-three Member States reported collaborating on a national level with other agencies,
authorities or persons in 2015–2017, predominantly traders or other private sector associations (18),
provincial state or territorial authorities (18) and NGOs (16) (Figure 4). Fewer Member States reported
47 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/746965/iwt-challenge-fund-list-2018.pdf
34
having collaborated with agencies for development (5) or indigenous or local peoples (5). “Other”
entities that Member States collaborated with include universities (CZ, SK) and zoos and rescue
centres (NL, SK).
Figure 4. Agencies, authorities or persons Member Stated collaborated on a national level in 2015-
2017
Several Member States reported CITES requirements are integrated into national and local
development strategies (8) and planning processes (7). Only four Member States reported CITES
requirements are integrated into national accounting and there were no Member States which
integrated with national and local poverty reduction strategies during this reporting period.
Q.3.3.3 Funding provided or received to facilitate capacity building activities
Four Member States reported that funding was provided or received to facilitate capacity building
activities to/from inter-governmental organisations in 2015–2017 (BG, DE, FR, HR). Inter-
governmental organisations included the African Elephant Fund, Amazon Cooperation Treaty
Organization (ACTO), ICCWC, UNODC and World Bank.
A further four Member States reported funding was provided or received to facilitate capacity building
activities to/from non-governmental organisations in 2015–2017 (AT, DE, LV, PL). Other organisations
mentioned include IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULI), TRAFFIC and the
support of the EU-TWIX database, WWF, PTOP Salamandra. Poland also commented that certain
NGOs had organised trainings for EAs between 2015 and 2017.
0 5 10 15 20
Agencies for development
Indigenous or local peoples
Local authorities or communities
Agencies for trade
NGOs
Provincial, state or territorialauthorities
Trade or other private sectorassociations
Number of Member States
35
Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals,
the sustainable development goals set at WSSD, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-
2020 and the relevant Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the relevant outcomes of the United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development is strengthened by ensuring that
international trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted at sustainable levels.
Q. 3.4.1a Conservation status of CITES-listed species
Twenty-two Member States reported having data which shows the conservation status of naturally
occurring species in the country listed on the CITES Appendices has stabilized or improved, the
majority of which was available for Appendix II-listed species (20 Member States), followed by
Appendix-I listed species (15). A further four Member States reported having data to show the
conservation status of Appendix III-listed species. Table 7 provides some example these studies.
Table 7. Examples of studies in 2015–2017 which show the conservation status has stabilised or
improved.
FR Population increase of Ursus arctos in France from 20 individuals in 2011 to 43 individuals
in 2017.
Estimated total number of Canis lupus increased from 282 in the winter of 2014/2015 to
430 in the winter of 2017/2018.
Distribution area of Lynx lynx in France increased to 8700 km² from 7600 km² since the
previous survey.
LV Some of the CITES-listed species populations were stable (e.g. Lynx lynx, Canis lupus,
orchids) or improved (e.g. Ursus arctos, Lutra lutra) but some declined (some species of
birds of prey) although these declines were caused by habitat loss or fragmentation, not
by illegal trade or poaching.
NL Moderate increase in total number of yearly nesting of Sea turtles Chelonidae spp.
Eretmochelys imbricata.
Yearly roost counts on Bonaire indicated the population of Yellow-shouldered Parrot
Amazona barbadensis increased from 2000 to 2017.
Yearly counts in Bonaire indicated the population of Caribbean Flamingo Phoenicopterus
ruber was stable48.
UK The status of Felis silvestris is constantly monitored by Scottish Natural Heritage. UK
native birds of prey (e.g. Falco peregrinus) and owls are regularly monitored through a
number of partnership schemes including periodic national targeted surveys, annual
reporting.
Q.3.4.1b Examples of success stories or emerging problems
Eight Member States reported having examples of success stories or emerging problems with CITES-
listed species. Some of the success stories included:
Population increases for indigenous birds of prey, including Falco peregrinus (BE).
Successful anti-wildlife trafficking operation carried out for live Anguilla anguilla in 2017 by
Greek and Spanish CITES authorities, Customs and police, supported by Europol and Eurojust
(EL).
48 http://www.dcbd.nl/monitoring/flamingos
36
Population increases of 10-15% since 2002 in occupied breeding territories of the Peregrine
Falcon (IE).
Development of more suitable nesting sites through the construction of artificial nests for
species including Black Stork Ciconia nigra, Lesser spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, White-tailed
Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla (LT).
Successful operations regarding sturgeons in the Danube Delta (RO)
The UK Ivory Bill, banning the sale of elephant ivory (with exemptions) currently making its
way through the UK parliamentary process (UK).
On the contrary, one Member State reported that growing populations of Canis lupus was causing
conflicts with local farmers by preying on livestock (LT).
Q.3.4.2 Integration of CITES into its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
Twenty-three Member States reported that CITES has been incorporated into the country’s National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), while the UK noted that although CITES has not been
incorporated into the NBSAP, it has been incorporated in certain UK Overseas Territories. For example,
in the Isle of Man, the biodiversity strategy (Managing out Natural Wealth, the Isle of Man’s first
biodiversity strategy, 2015–2025) incorporates CITES. The UK also incorporated international species
conservation work in its 25 Year Environment Plan (published in January 2018). No Member State
reported obtaining funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) or other sources to support CITES
aspects of NBSAP implementation during this reporting period.
Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international
organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources, as appropriate, in order to
achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be endangered by
unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially exploited.
Q.3.5.1 Actions undertaken under bilateral/multilateral agreement to prevent over-exploitation
through international trade
Ten Member States reported having acted under established bilateral or multilateral agreements
other than CITES to prevent species from being unsustainably exploited through international trade.
Several Member States mentioned the CMS, and its agreements and MoUs (ES, HU, NL, RO). One
Member State reported international co-operation regarding reduction of illegal killing of birds under
the CMS and Bern Convention (HU). Other bilateral/multilateral agreements included:
Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds under the CMS (RO)
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) (IT)
Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention (IAC) (NL)
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (HR)
Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean Region (the
SPAW Protocol) (NL)
Another Member State commented trade in wild specimens of indigenous CITES listed species is not
allowed and no action was taken under such bilateral or multilateral agreements (PT).
37
Q.3.5.2 Average number of times per year that other international organisations or agreements
have been consulted by CITES Authorities
Nineteen Member States reported having consulted relevant international organisations and
agreements dealing with natural resources on issues relevant to species subject to unsustainable trade
between 2015–2017 (see Figure 5). Examples of entities that were consulted included the European
Commission, IUCN, UNEP-WCMC, EU SRG, Europol, Interpol, the EU Enforcement Group and NGOs
(e.g. TRAFFIC, Born Free Foundation) and multilateral environmental agreements.
Figure 5. Average number of times per year that international organisations or agreements have
been consulted by CITES authorities of Member States in 2015–2017
General feedback
Four Member States reported having issues with implementing the Convention between 2015–2017
(CY, IE, LT, UK), including species identification (CY), increase in the number of applications for CITES
permits and certificates (IE), difficulties in keeping confiscated or seized animals, especially large
animals (e.g. lions, tigers or bears) (LT) and limited resources in the overseas territories (UK).
Three Member States reported having examples of good practice to be shared with other Parties (ES,
NL, PT). The Netherlands noted the Dutch National CITES Day was organised every year for all officers
from the different government authorities involved in CITES with the aim to get to know with each
other and each other’s work better by meeting face to face, organising workshops and presenting case
studies. In addition, national CITES consultation meetings were held five times a year with all
government authorities involved in CITES to exchange knowledge and align priorities and activities
(NL). Another Member State reported having established a national enforcement group (PT).
38
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Main conclusions on EU and Member States implementation of CITES
Based on the information provided by the 28 Member States, the EU has the necessary legislative and
regulatory structures and procedures in place to ensure compliance with CITES, and demonstrates
considerable effort in communication, research and collaboration within enforcement and
administration of CITES.
Between 2015 and 2017, Member States made considerable efforts to ensure compliance with the
implementation and enforcement of the Convention. Several Member States developed new CITES-
relevant policies or legislation, including revisions to national legislation to acknowledge the
seriousness of environmental crime, ensuring Overseas Territories have CITES legislation Category
One Status, and amendments to national legislation/policies regarding the EU de-facto ban on the re-
export of pre-convention elephant ivory. Member States also reportedly have sufficient administrative
procedures to implement CITES, including simplified procedures for the issuance of permits and
certificates. However, several Member States suggested that additional simplified procedures should
be developed, including for travelling exhibition certificates, the use of labels for exchanges of
museum and herbarium specimens between registered scientific institutions, and for musical
instruments.
Over the reporting period, Member States were also taking steps to develop electronic permit
information and data exchange, and e-permitting systems between agencies, with several calling for
compatible EU systems and platforms, and for additional resources and capacity to do so. If the EU
were to develop an EU-wide e-permitting platform after the feasibility study currently in course,
lessons learned and best practices should be drawn from Member States through the process. For
example, one Member State (FR) has now linked the information technology system used to validate
Customs declarations with the system delivering CITES documents, allowing for real-time monitoring
of the use of national permits and certificates. In terms of implementing the Convention at the
national level in line with decisions adopted by CoP17, some Member States reported having
encountered difficulties. Several concerns focused on the up-listing of species in the CITES Appendices,
such as Dalbergia spp. and the associated issues with species identification, and continued
enforcement capacity issues in terms of increased communication with Range States and a high
number of seizures. It should be noted that in response to several Parties having experienced these
issues, Annotation #15 was revised at CoP18 and finished musical instruments, finished musical
instrument parts, and finished musical instrument accessories are now exempt from the listing49.
Between 2015 and 2017, Member States have also made efforts to ensure scientific information such
as populations status of Appendix I and Appendix II listed species are kept updated through surveys,
studies or other analyses. While most of the Member States reported using a combination of factors
in making NDFs, some of which have standard procedures for making NDFs, only three Member States
published NDFs that can be shared. This may in part be because native species are normally not
exported from the country as pointed out by some Member States; and the EU has a stricter regulation
49 https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/18/Com_I/E-CoP18-Com-I-11.pdf
39
than CITES on imports of species listed on Appendix II and Annex B by requiring an import permit; and
the SRG opinions on imports/exports from and to the EU are normally followed by CITES SA of all
Member States. Member States are encouraged to provide more details of the NDFs they make (e.g.
whether the NDFs are made on import and/or export and for which species) and share examples of
how NDFs are conducted for certain species in the EU, as appropriate, to help guide other Parties in
the making of sound and scientifically robust NDFs.
Based on the responses received, it is evident that Member States have been making significant efforts
to co-operatively manage shared wildlife resources. Some notable examples include becoming
signatories to the CMS, the IWC and the Bern Convention, signing MoUs for the protection of certain
species, and implementing transboundary projects funded by the EU. There were also several reports
of co-operative management plans for CITES-listed species, including the Eel Management Plan for
the Miño river basin shared between Spain and Portugal, Action Plans for the Baltic Sea Harbour
Porpoises, and EU LIFE funded projects for the management of populations of Brown Bear and Lynx
in Central and Eastern Europe. Between 2015 and 2017, Member States were also collaborating with
external stakeholders, such as the CITES Secretariat, experts and the police, and with other CITES
Parties mainly to exchange information, co-operate on law enforcement and species monitoring, and
to address conservation and management.
It is encouraging that so many Member States have been involved in cross-border law enforcement
activities and collaboration between CITES authorities, as well as inter-agency co-operation, to reduce
illegal wildlife trade between 2015 and 2017. Some notable examples include participation in
international multi-disciplinary operations, some of which were supported by Europol, Eurojust and
Interpol, regular enforcement information exchange, particularly via EU-TWIX, adoption of national
action plans, and bilateral agreements and meetings between different countries’ CITES authorities
and agencies to ensure effective collaboration. Several Member States also noted having specialised
CITES taskforces or enforcement units. However, it should be noted that currently less than half of EU
Member States reportedly have a process or mechanism for reviewing their national enforcement
strategy and the activities implemented under these.
The EU and all the Member States are Parties to the UNTOC, which defines “serious crime” as an
offence punishable by imprisonment of at least four years or more. While more than 90% of Member
States reported having the necessary laws and procedures in place for investigating, prosecuting and
penalising CITES offences as a crime, only 65% reported that criminal offences, such as poaching and
wildlife trafficking, are recognised as serious crimes in their country. This may warrant further
clarification and attention with the relevant Member States to ensure the EU’s commitment to
ensuring organised wildlife trafficking constitutes a serious crime. It is worth noting however, that
between 2015 and 2017, several Member States reported having legislative provisions for predicate
offences and organised crime, and twenty-six Member States successfully penalised CITES violations
through administrative measures, criminal prosecutions or other court actions. Fewer were involved
in supply and demand side activities to address illegal wildlife trade during this reporting period, and
several Member States raised concerns regarding the disposal of confiscated specimens, with notable
challenges related to the cost of maintenance, and a lack of space and capacity to keep seized animals
and plants.
40
Based on the responses received, it is evident that Member States require further resources and
capacity building for the operation and implementation of the Convention. Several Member States
reported that their CITES authorities do not have sufficient funding, staff capacity or skills to function
effectively to ensure compliance with and the implementation and enforcement of the Convention.
For example, between 2015 and 2017, budgets available for CITES authorities decreased in some
Member States, and all reported they were unable to use international development funding
assistance to increase the level of implementation across their CITES authorities or that these funding
opportunities were not applicable. While most Member States charge fees for CITES-related matters,
e.g. documents issues, only eleven reported that the revenues generated were either used entirely or
partly for the implementation of CITES, while seven reported that revenues were not used at all for
this purpose. Furthermore, only ca. 50% of Member States have institutional capacity to implement
legislative provisions for CITES offences, and only 68% have capacity to use forensic technology to
support investigation of CITES offences. Concerns were also raised as to the lack of experienced staff,
specialists available for investigating wildlife crime, and lack of awareness amongst judges and
prosecutors. Across the Member States at the national level, there are varying requirements for
enhancing the effectiveness of CITES implementation. Member States reported about a great need
for the hiring of more staff and development of implementation tools, followed by purchasing of
technical equipment and developing e-permitting systems. These concerns indicate that further work
may need to be done to raise the profile of environmental crime across the EU, as a precondition for
mobilising the necessary resources. This should also be considered when evaluating the EU Action
Plan against Wildlife Trafficking.
Between 2015 and 2017, Member States were also making other efforts to reduce the rate of
biodiversity loss and achieve relevant globally agreed goals and targets. Some have provided technical
or financial assistance to other countries, for example training and campaigns to reduce consumption
of rhino horn in Viet Nam, or co-funding workshops on livelihoods in Africa. Others conducted
awareness raising activities regarding the requirements of CITES to the wider public, such as consumer
and international tourism fairs and meetings with traders of CITES-listed species. The number of
international and national projects which reportedly integrate CITES issues varied among Member
States, however most collaborated on a national level with other agencies, authorities or persons such
as traders or private sector associations, state authorities and NGOs. Notably, twenty-two Member
States reported having data which show that the conservation status of naturally occurring species in
the country and listed on the CITES Appendices has stabilized or improved. The majority of these
species are Appendix II-listed species, including the Brown Bear, the Grey Wolf and populations of
Lynx and birds of prey. Member States also mentioned the successful anti-wildlife trafficking
operations carried out for live European Eel in 2017 by Greek and Spanish CITES authorities, Customs
and police, supported by Europol and Eurojust, and the UK Ivory Act banning the sale of elephant ivory
(with exemptions) which received Royal Assent in December 2018 and is expected to come into force
in late 2019. More than 90% of Member States also reported that CITES has been incorporated into
the country’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
4.2 Evaluation of the Implementation Report format
At the time of the 2013–2014 analysis, plans were already underway to replace the CITES Biennial
Report with the Implementation Report. As a result, the discussion and conclusion of the 2013–2014
Biennial Report analysis focused on reviewing and comparing the questions in the two reporting
41
formats and examined whether certain topics should be considered for inclusions in a new Part 2 for
EU Member States. As a follow-up to those conclusions, this section assesses the structure of the
revised format, based on the responses received from the 28 EU Member States. It also focuses on
the topics that may be relevant for inclusion in a new supplement to the Implementation Report for
EU Member States to monitor the implementation of the Wildlife Trade Regulations.
4.2.1 Interpretation of questions relating to EU-wide provisions
The previous EU format for the CITES Biennial Report was structured in a way that allowed Member
States to respond on national provisions regarding CITES compliance in Part 1, followed by information
on the provisions of the Wildlife Trade Regulations and the 2007 EU Action Plan in Part 2. Questions
in the current Implementation Report are not only very different from those in the previous Part 1,
but the additional Part 2 has been removed from the reporting format. The Implementation Report
contains several questions to which EU-wide provisions are applicable and, based on their responses,
Member States have different interpretations of the way in which they need to respond to these types
of questions. Some have responded in terms of the changes or rules set out under the Wildlife Trade
Regulations, while others have answered based on national provisions and/or activities. One example
relates to the question on whether any CITES relevant policies or legislation have been developed
during the reporting period (Q1.1.1a). Sixteen Member States reported that no CITES relevant policies
had been developed during 2015–2017, while 12 responded positively. However, some of those
Member States responded to this question in reference to changes to EU law, not national law, such
as the EU Guidance Document published in May 201750. Another example relates to the question on
whether there are approved service standards for CITES Authorities (Q2.2.1a-c). Member States
answered variably to these questions, with some referencing the provisions set out under the Wildlife
Trade Regulations while others were likely responding on whether additional national service
standards were in place, other than those required under EU law. Several other examples include
those responses received from Member States on the making of NDFs (Q1.5.1 and Q1.5.2), the setting
of annual export quotas (Q1.5.3) and efforts to reduce illegal wildlife trade (Q1.7.1a), amongst others51.
Some Member States were not consistent in each of their responses between the questions relating
to EU-wide provisions.
Member States providing information on the provisions set out under EU law, which are directly
applicable to all Member States, is useful to understand better how CITES is implemented across the
EU. However, the variable interpretation in how to respond to these questions makes it very difficult
to analyse accurately EU Member State responses on these topics. To allow for accurate interpretation
and analysis, one option may be for the EU, which is also a Party to CITES in its own right, to submit a
separate report based on the Wildlife Trade Regulations. The EU Member States would then submit
their own reports based only on national provisions. If such a way forward were adopted, guidance
could be developed for EU Member States to facilitate consistent interpretation of the questions.
4.2.2 Need for guidance on interpretation of ambiguous questions
As with the previous CITES Biennial Report, the Implementation Report contains several questions
that are open for interpretation which makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive response. For
example, Q1.6.3c “In what ways do you collaborate with other CITES Parties” and Q1.7.4a “Do you use
50 Guidance suspending the (re-)export of raw ivory items and setting guidance to ensure the strict interpretation of the provisions under EU law authorising intra-EU trade and the (re-)export of worked ivory. 51 See questions marked with an asterisk for those in which Member States may have answered with regards to EU-wide provisions.
42
risk assessment to target CITES enforcement effort” provide options for answers including “Always”,
“Very often”, “Sometimes”, “Rarely” and “Never”. Furthermore, Q2.2.4b “Have incentives harmful to
biodiversity been eliminated” provides answers “Not at all”, “Very little”, “Somewhat” and
“Completely”. There is currently no guidance to define the frequency meant by these terms and
therefore it is very likely that each Member State would interpret these differently. There are also
several questions that simply require a Yes/No response with no request for further information, i.e.
questions under Indicator 1.7.4, Objective 1.8, and Indicator 3.3.2. These types of questions leave no
room for Member States to provide additional information to support their response or to establish
how the question was interpreted. Furthermore, the structure of these questions may not be the best
format for collecting the desired information. For example, Q1.7.4d and Q1.7.4e ask whether there
were supply-side and demand-side activities to address illegal trade in CITES-listed species between
2015-2017. While 16 Member States reported having implemented either one of these activities, very
few provided further information as comments are not required. Therefore, it is unclear how many of
the 16 Member States responding to this question positively reported about demand or supply-side
activities, missing interesting information. Question 2.2.1 requests information on the resources
available in each country to ensure compliance with and the implementation and enforcement of the
Convention. Where there is a question on performance targets set for any service standards, several
Member States reported the specific timings involved when issuing permit or certificates, however
others did not. Clarification should be given on whether this information should be provided or not.
Furthermore, there are several questions that only allow Parties to respond one answer for multiple
CITES authorities. For example, Q2.2.2d, requests information on the level of priority for enhancing
the effectiveness of CITES implementation in countries. However, there is no option for Member
States to respond on the level of priority for each of different CITES authorities (e.g. the CITES MA and
SA). Therefore, clarification should be provided on how CITES Parties should respond to these types
of questions.
Several questions request information on oral/written advice/guidance, technical assistance and
training either received or provided by CITES Parties, however there is no common understanding on
what constitutes the difference between oral/written advice/guidance and technical assistance, and
technical assistance and training. As many Member States do not provide more in-depth information
on what type of assistance this entails, it is unclear whether they have uniformly interpreted these.
Member States may wish to consider if it would be beneficial to have clear guidance on how to
interpret relevant questions and if robust definitions are provided where needed for the next
reporting period. If Parties find it useful, the guidance could be coupled with or even replaced by an
example of a completed report to avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
There are cases where several questions appear to be very similar in the Implementation Report,
which resulted in Member States repeating information unnecessarily or being unclear where to fill in
certain types of information. For example, in some cases, the information provided in Q1.5.1a on the
making of NDFs “Have any surveys, studies or other analyses been undertaken in relation to the status
of and trend in naturally-occurring Appendix I species” and Q3.4.1 “Do you have data which shows
that the conservation status of naturally species in your country on the CITES Appendices has stabilized
or improved” were difficult to differentiate and some Member States repeated the same studies under
both. Furthermore, EU Member States provided similar answers to the questions on capacity-building
activities to other Range States (Q1.6.3b) and technical or financial assistance to other countries in
43
relation to CITES (Q3.1.2b). Another is example is Q1.6.3b and Q2.3.1a-b, where Member States
provided similar answers on the provision of capacity building activities to other countries. There are
also several questions in the report which Member States flagged as difficult to interpret. For example,
at the beginning of section 1.5, it states that these questions relate to the development of NDFs on
export. However, it may be worth reiterating this point in each of the individual questions as there
seemed to be some misinterpretation by Member States. Question 1.7.5d asks how confiscated
specimens are disposed of, however some Member States interpreted this as how live specimens are
confiscated, and other interpreted this as how all specimens (including live, bodies, parts and
derivatives). For future reporting periods, Member States may find it useful if guidance explains what
is required under each of the relevant questions and how they differ from each other.
Throughout the report, there are opportunities or requests for Parties to provide additional
information based on their response, yet the quantity of information supplemented by Member States
is extremely variable per country, and per question. This was also highlighted as an issue in previous
CITES Biennial Reports where Member States would simply answer Yes/No and provide no further
details. While there may be several reasons for this, the request for additional information can easily
be missed when going through the questionnaire as they are usually associated with the multiple-
choice questions. Member States may find it helpful that guidance or an example of a completed
report highlight in a separate colour or in bold where any additional information is being requested.
4.2.3 Use of standard templates to submit data
In the new CITES Implementation Report, there are a series of questions related to measuring
Indicator 1.7.3 (under Objective 1.7) of the CITES Strategic Vision which relate to legislation and
procedures for investigating, prosecuting and penalizing CITES offences. One of these questions aims
at information on penalties. While many Member States responded positively and provided further
details, the information was submitted in various formats, related to different types of offences,
national legislation and with varying level of detail, making it challenging to interpret and analyse. For
example, some Member States reported the maximum fines and imprisonment associated with
certain National Acts, yet they provided no details on whether these were for natural or legal persons.
Other Member States provided details on Criminal and/or Penal Codes and levels of imprisonment,
but no information on fines, while others provided details on fines imposed depending on factors such
as income of the offender and conservation status of the species. Some Member States also simply
stated the legislation and provided no further details. As a result, it is recommended that the
Commission explore how a specific template could be developed through the relevant CITES processes
that could be provided to all CITES Parties for submission of information relating to these questions.
This will ensure Member States submit all relevant information required and accurate interpretation
of the responses.
4.3 Development of a new supplement to the report for EU Member States Until the 2015–2017 reporting period, the CITES Biennial Report format for EU Member States
incorporated two parts: Part 1, which was the CITES Biennial Report as agreed for all CITES Parties 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 and related to information on the provisions
44
of the Regulation52and to Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC53 (the 2007 EU Enforcement
Action Plan).
Following the adoption of the new Implementation Report process and format, the tenth meeting of
the Group of Experts of the Competent CITES MAs in the EU (ExGr 10) on 6 February 2018 decided
that no additional reporting requirements should be introduced for the 2015-2017 reporting period.
The reasons for this decision were threefold. Firstly, in February 2016, the European Commission
adopted a Communication on the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking which sets out a
comprehensive blueprint for joined-up efforts to fight wildlife crime inside the EU, and for
strengthening the EU’s role in the global fight against these illegal activities. This Wildlife Action Plan
supersedes the 2007 EU Enforcement Action Plan, and therefore the questions in the previous Part 2
of the CITES Biennial Report were not directly relevant anymore. Secondly, EU Member States were
invited to report on the implementation of the Wildlife Action Plan in July 2018 for the mid-term
review of progress under the Action Plan54, which was considered to have covered issues in Part 2 of
the previous Biennial Report for the 2015-2017 period. Lastly, further clarifications were required by
the Expert Group on whether additional reporting would be necessary under the new CITES
Implementation Report format in the future, to monitor implementation under the EU Action Plan
against Wildlife Trafficking.
4.3.1 Reporting requirements under Commission Regulation 865/97
Beyond the information referred to in Article 15(4)(c) of Regulation 338/97, Article 69(5) of
Commission Regulation 865/97 requires Member States to report on additional topics including
persons and bodies registered, scientific institutions, approved breeders, caviar (re-)packaging plants
licensed and use of phytosanitary certificates. Member States were able to regularly report on these
issues in Part 2 of the previous CITES Biennial Report, however there is currently no mechanism for
Member States to regularly report on these topics. Requesting Member States to submit this
information during each reporting period would ensure that accurate and up to information is
available for all Member States to access.
4.3.2 Questions/topics not included in the Implementation Report
Compared with the previous CITES Biennial Report, including Part 2, several questions and topics have
been removed from the Implementation Report format which may still be useful for monitoring
implementation of the Wildlife Trade Regulations by EU Member States.
Stricter domestic measures The Implementation Report does not request information from Parties on nationally adopted stricter
domestic measures for conditions and/or prohibition of trade, taking, possession and transport for
CITES-listed species. While some Member States reported having stricter domestic measures, such as
the prohibition of taking and/or export of indigenous CITES-listed species from the wild, through
answers to other questions, there is no opportunity to develop a comprehensive picture of all Parties’
stricter domestic measures. Collating such information can be useful to help maintain awareness
when handling trade from/to countries which have specific measures for native species, or strict
52 See Biennial Report format in Annex 1 of the Analysis of EU Member State CITES Biennial Reports 2013-2014 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2013-2014.pdf 53 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007H0425&from=GA 54 Progress report on the implementation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/progress_report_EU_action_plan_wildlife_trafficking_en.pdf). Reporting from the Member States: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/Member_States_contribution_progress_EU_action_plan_wildlife_trafficking.zip
45
marking and/or registration requirements. If an EU-specific addition to the reporting format were
developed, the provision of this information by EU Member States could be included there, to help
making comparisons of measures across the Member States and whether these affect document
applications and trade.
Marking Under the Wildlife Trade Regulations, there are certain specimens of species listed that have to be
uniquely marked or labelled, for example, for internal EU trade control purposes (e.g. live Annex A
animals) or for the purposes of controlling trade to and from the EU (e.g. crocodilian skins and caviar).
As there is no part in the reporting format specifically for EU Member States, details on marking to
facilitate the identification of specimens are not provided. Marking requirements at the national and
EU level have been developed to prevent fraud, limit illegal trade in specimens, assist authorities in
monitoring and controlling wildlife trade and help provide evidence for enforcement
actions/prosecutions. As there is considerable variation in the implementation of marking
requirements across the EU, having accurate and up to date information through regular reporting of
marking requirements is vital for Member States to be remain aware of each other’s national marking
requirements to ensure compliance. Furthermore, considering there is growing evidence of cases of
illegal trade in wild-caught specimens of CITES-listed species through fraudulent claims that wild-
caught specimens are captive bred, monitoring the implementation of marking requirements and
effectiveness of current Wildlife Trade Regulations is important for combatting illegal wildlife trade.
CITES documents issued/denied and reasons for rejections The previous CITES Biennial Report asked Parties to provide information on the number of CITES
documents issued and denied, and the reasons for any rejections. These questions specifically referred
to issued documents and not trade quantities (as reported in the Annual Reports). These questions
have been excluded from the Implementation Report while they provided a useful basic measure of
the importance of a country in wildlife trade and the relevant administrative burden imposed on
countries to issue permits. Analyses of permit numbers have also enabled comparisons over time and
of trade directions55. Provision of information on denied applications has also proved useful when
establishing the level of scrutiny imposed by countries during the permit issuing process. Reasons for
rejecting any CITES documents from other countries are equally as important. Based on analyses of
previous Biennial Reports, reasons for rejections include technical violations (e.g. lack of marking),
suspected fraud and insufficient basis for an NDF. If Parties were 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. If a new EU-specific part were to be developed,
inclusion of these topics is encouraged.
Training/awareness raising for prosecution services/judiciary
Low levels of co-operation between the CITES authorities and the prosecution/judiciary has been a
concern raised by many EU Member States in the past. While the Implementation Report format
includes a question regarding training for permit officers and enforcement officials, there is no
reference to training or awareness raising activities for prosecution services or the judiciary. However,
Objective 2.2 of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking is to boost the capacity of all links in
the enforcement chain and the judiciary to take effective action against wildlife trafficking in the EU.
It is therefore likely that Member States provided information to the Commission on this topic in the
55 See previous CITES Biennial Report Analyses for more information.
46
2018 progress report and will have to do the same when the Action Plan is evaluated in 2020 (see
below for further details). At this stage, it would therefore not be essential that a specific question on
this be included in a new EU-specific part.
4.3.3 Monitoring implementation of EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking
For the 2018 progress report on implementing the Action Plan and on whether its priorities and
objectives were still appropriate and relevant, Member States provided significant contributions
which covered several issues previously included in Part 2 of the Biennial Report. The Action Plan, in
its current form, runs until 2020 and will be evaluated during the course of that year. While the next
CITES Implementation Report, due in 2021, will thus cover three years in which measures by Member
States are implemented under the Action Plan, it is clear that Member States will also contribute to
the Commission’s final evaluation of the Action Plan in 2020.
4.4 Recommendations Based on the information outlined above, the following recommendations are made:
Clear guidance, including definitions for some of the terminology (e.g. what constitutes the
difference between oral/written advice/guidance and technical assistance – see 4.1.2), should
be developed for the 2018–2020 Implementation Report submission for EU Member States
(if not for all CITES Parties), to ensure common understanding and allow for accurate
interpretation of the questions and terms provided in the report. As the submission of the
Implementation Reports is mandatory under CITES, developing guidance would also help
ensure meaningful information was gathered for the Commission and Member States to
monitor compliance at the EU level. This may also avoid Member States having to provide
additional information for some of the questions at a later stage to understand their CITES
compliance. If Member States find it useful, this guidance could be accompanied by a "model
report" for reference;
The Commission should explore how a standard template could be developed for CITES Parties
through the relevant CITES processes when providing detailed information on penalties
available for CITES offences. This would allow for accurate interpretation of the data provided
and help gather the most complete picture of penalties across EU Member States; and
A supplementary part of the reporting format, specifically applicable for EU Member States,
should be developed for the next reporting period 2018–2020 as a way of monitoring the
implementation of aspects of the Wildlife Trade Regulations that are not covered by the
Implementation Report, particularly the information required in accordance with Article 69(5)
of Commission Regulation 865/2006. The development of such a supplement should involve
the Group of Experts of the Competent CITES MAs, the Commission, other CITES authorities
and other relevant stakeholders to ensure its value and suitability for analysis.
47
5. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: CITES Implementation Report format
The format below follows the structure of the CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2020 and aims to collect
information to enable the Strategic Vision indicators to be implemented.
CITES vision statement
Conserve biodiversity and contribute to its sustainable use by ensuring that no species of
wild fauna or flora becomes or remains subject to unsustainable exploitation through
international trade, thereby contributing to the significant reduction of the rate of
biodiversity loss and making a significant contribution towards achieving the relevant Aichi
Biodiversity Targets.
Article VIII, paragraph 7 (b), of the Convention requires each Party to submit to the CITES Secretariat
a report on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures taken to enforce the provisions of
the Convention.
The 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.
Information on the nature and extent of CITES trade should be incorporated into the annual report
[Article VIII paragraph 7 (a)], whereas the report provided under Article VIII paragraph 7 (b) should
focus on measures taken to implement the Convention.
The report should cover the period indicated in Resolution Conf. 11.17 (Rev. CoP16) which urges that the report should be submitted to the Secretariat one year before each meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP). The reason for setting the report to be due a year in advance of the following CoP is to allow information to be collated so it can be considered by the Standing Committee in advance of CoP, and enable publication of the Strategic Vision indicators in advance of CoP.
Reports should be prepared in one of the three working languages of the Convention (English, French, Spanish).
Parties are strongly encouraged to prepare and submit their reports in electronic form. This will facilitate timely integration of information from Parties into publication of the Strategic Vision Indicators. If reports are only provided in hard copy, resources will be needed at the Secretariat to make an electronic copy, and this is not good use of Secretariat resources.
The completed report should be sent to:
CITES Secretariat
International Environment House
Chemin des Anémones 11-13
CH-1219 Châtelaine-Geneva
Switzerland
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +41-(0)22-917-81-39/40
48
Fax: +41-(0)22-797-34-17
If a Party requires further guidance on completing their report, please contact the CITES Secretariat
at the address above.
49
Party
Period covered in this report
Department or agency preparing this report
Contributing departments, agencies and organizations
GOAL 1 ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CONVENTION
Objective 1.1 Parties comply with their obligations under the Convention through appropriate
policies, legislation and procedures.
All Aichi Targets relevant to CITES, particularly Aichi Target
2, Target 6, Target 9, Target 12, Target 17 and Target 18.
Indicator 1.1.1: The number of Parties that are in category 1 under the national legislation project.
1.1.1a Have any CITES relevant policies or legislation been developed during the period covered in this
report?
Yes No
If ‘Yes’, have you shared information with the Secretariat? Yes No Not
Applicable
If ‘No’, please provide details to the Secretariat with this report:
1.1.1b Does your legislation or legislative process allow easy amendment of your national law(s) to
reflect
changes in the CITES Appendices (e.g. to meet the 90 day implementation
guidelines)?
Yes No
If ‘No’, please provide details of the constraints faced:
Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent, practical,
coherent and user-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.
Aichi Target 3.
Indicator 1.2.1: The number of Parties that have adopted standard transparent procedures for the
timely issuance of permits in accordance with Article VI of the Convention.
Yes No
No
information
1.2.1a Do you have standard operating procedures for application
for and issuance of permits?
Are the procedures publicly available?
1.2.1b Do you have:
50
Electronic data management and a paper-based permit
issuance system?
Electronic permit information exchange between Management
Authorities of some countries
If ‘Yes’, please list countries
Electronic permit information exchange to Management
Authorities of all countries?
Electronic permit data exchange between Management
Authorities and customs?
Electronic permit used to cross border with electronic
validation by customs?
If ‘Yes’ to any of the above, please provide information on challenges faced or issues overcome:
If ‘No’, do you have any plans to move towards e-
permitting56?
If you are planning to move towards e-permitting, please explain what might help you to do so:
Indicator 1.2.2: The number of Parties making use of the simplified procedures provided for in
Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16).
1.2.2a Has your country developed simplified procedures for any of the following?
Tick all applicable
Yes No
No
information
Where biological samples of the type and size specified in
Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16) are urgently
required.
For the issuance of pre-Convention certificates or equivalent
documents in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 2.
For the issuance of certificates of captive breeding or artificial
propagation in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 5.
For the issuance of export permits or re-export certificates in
accordance with Article IV for specimens referred to in
Article VII, paragraph 4.
Are there other cases judged by a Management Authority to
merit the use of simplified procedures?
If ‘Yes’, please provide details:
56 e-permitting refers to the electronic (paperless) management of the permit business process, including permit application,
Management Authority – Scientific Authority consultations, permit issuance, notification to customs and reporting.
51
Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with decisions
adopted by the Conference of the Parties.
All Aichi targets relevant to CITES, particularly Target 9,
Target 14 and Target 18.
Indicator 1.3.1: The number of Parties that have implemented relevant reporting under
Resolutions and Decisions of the Conference of the Parties and/or Standing
Committee recommendations.
1.3.1a Has your country responded to all relevant special reporting requirements that are active
during the period covered in this report, including those in the Resolutions and Decisions of
the Conference of the Parties, Standing Committee recommendations, and Notifications
issued by the Secretariat (see [link to location on the CITES website where the reporting
requirements are listed])?
Responses provided to ALL relevant reporting requirements
Responses provided to SOME of the relevant reporting requirements
Responses provided to NONE of the relevant reporting requirements
No special reporting requirements applicable
1.3.1b Were any difficulties encountered during the period covered in this report in
implementing specific Resolutions or Decisions adopted by the Conference
of the Parties?
Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please provide details of which Resolution(s) or Decision(s), and, for each, what
difficulties
were / are being encountered?
Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species.
Aichi Target 1, Target12, Target 14 and Target 19.
1.4.1: The number and proportion of species that have been found to meet the criteria
contained in Resolution Conf. 9.24 or its successors. This includes both the periodic review
and amendment proposals.
1.4.1a Have you undertaken any reviews of whether species would benefit from listing
on the CITES Appendices? Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please provide a summary here, or a link to the report of the work
(or a copy of that report to the Secretariat if the work is not available online):
Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings.
Aichi Target 2, Target 4, Target 5, Target 6, Target 7, Target
9, Target 12 and Target 14.
52
Indicator 1.5.1: The number of surveys, studies or other analyses undertaken by exporting
countries based on the sources of information cited in Resolution Conf. 16.7 on
Non-detriment findings related to:
a) the population status of Appendix-II species;
b) the trends and impact of trade upon Appendix-II
species; and
c) the status of and trend in naturally-occurring
Appendix I species and the impact of any recovery plans.
1.5.1a Have any surveys, studies or other analyses been undertaken in your country in relation to:
Yes
No
Not
Applicable
If Yes,
How
many?
- the population status of Appendix II species?
- the trends and impact of trade on Appendix II species?
- the status of and trend in naturally-occurring Appendix I species?
- the impact of any recovery plans on Appendix I species?
Have the surveys, studies or analyses integrated relevant knowledge and expertise of local and indigenous communities?
53
If there are such studies that you are willing to share, please provide:
Species name (scientific)
A brief summary of the results of the survey,
study or other analysis (e.g. population status,
decline / stable / increase, off-take levels etc), or
provide links to published reference material.
1.5.1b How are the results of such surveys, studies or other analyses used in making non-detriment
findings (NDFs)?
Please tick all that apply
Revised harvest or export quotas
Banning export
Stricter domestic measures
Changed management of the species
Discussion with Management Authorities
Discussion with other stakeholders?
Other (please provide a short summary):
1.5.1c Do you have specific conservation measures or recovery plans for naturally occurring Appendix-I listed species?
Yes
No
Not Applicable
No information
If ‘Yes’, please provide a brief summary, including, if possible, an evaluation of their
impact:
1.5.1d Have you published any non-detriment findings that can be shared? Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please provide links or examples to the Secretariat within this report:
1.5.1e Which of the following (A to F of paragraph a) x) of Resolution Conf. 16.7) do you use in making non-detriment findings?
Yes No
A. relevant scientific literature concerning species biology, life history, distribution and population trends.
B. details of any ecological risk assessments conducted.
C. scientific surveys conducted at harvest locations and at sites protected from harvest and other impacts.
D. relevant knowledge and expertise of local and indigenous communities.
E. consultations with relevant local, regional and international experts.
F. national and international trade information such as that available via the CITES trade database maintained by UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), publications on trade, local knowledge on trade and investigations of sales at markets or through the Internet for example.
54
55
Indicator 1.5.2: The number of Parties that have adopted standard procedures for making non-
detriment findings.
1.5.2a
Yes
No
No
informatio
n
Do you have standard procedures for making non-detriment findings in line with Resolution Conf. 16.7?
If ‘Yes’, please briefly describe your procedures for making non-detriment findings, or attach as an annex to this report, or provide a link to where the information can be found on the internet:
1.5.2b When establishing non-detriment findings, have any of the following guidance been used?
Please tick all that
apply
Virtual College
IUCN Checklist
Resolution Conf. 16.7
2008 NDF workshop
Species specific guidance
Other
If ‘Other’ or ‘Species specific guidance’, please specify details:
1.5.2c How often do you review and/or change your non-
detriment findings?
Case by case
Annually
Every two years
Less frequently
A mix of the above
Please describe the circumstances under which non-detriment findings would be changed:
Indicator 1.5.3: The number and proportion of annual export quotas based on population surveys.
1.5.3a Do you set annual export quotas? Yes
No
If ‘Yes’, do you set quotas based on population survey,
or by other means? Please specify, for each species,
how quotas are set:
Species Name (scientific)
Population
Survey?
Other,
please
specify
56
1.5.3b Have annual export quotas been set at levels which will
ensure sustainable production and consumption?
Yes
No
If ‘Yes’, please describe how this fits into your non-detriment finding process:
57
Objective 1.6 Parties cooperate in managing shared wildlife resources.
Aichi Target 4, Target 5, Target 6, Target 7, Target 10, Target
12 and Target 19.
Indicator 1.6.1: The number of bilateral and multilateral agreements that specifically provide for
co-management of shared CITES listed species by range States.
1.6.1a Is your country a signatory to any bilateral and/or multilateral
agreements for co-management of shared species?
Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please provide brief details, including the names of the agreements, and which other
countries are involved:
Indicator 1.6.2: The number of cooperative management plans, including recovery plans, in place
for shared populations of CITES-listed species.
1.6.2a Do you have any cooperative management plans, including recovery plans, in place for shared populations of CITES-listed species? Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please list the species for which these plans are in place and provide a link or reference to a published plan for each species.
Species Name (scientific) Link or reference to a published plan
Indicator 1.6.3: The number of workshops and other capacity-building activities that bring range
States together to address the conservation and management needs of shared,
CITES listed, species.
1.6.3a Have the CITES authorities received or benefited from 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
tte
n
advi
ce/g
uid
ance
Tech
nic
al a
ssis
tan
ce
Fin
anci
al a
ssis
tan
ce
Trai
nin
g
Oth
er (
spec
ify)
What were the
external sources57?
Staff of Management Authority
Staff of Scientific Authority
57 Please provide the names of Parties, and any non-Parties, involved.
58
Staff of enforcement authorities
Traders
NGOs
Public
Other (please specify):
1.6.3b Have the CITES authorities been the providers of any of the following capacity-building
activities to other range States?
Please tick boxes to indicate which
target group and which activity.
Target group Ora
l or
wri
tte
n
advi
ce/g
uid
ance
Tech
nic
al a
ssis
tan
ce
Fin
anci
al a
ssis
tan
ce
Trai
nin
g
Oth
er (
spec
ify)
Details
Staff of Management Authority
Staff of Scientific Authority
Staff of enforcement authorities
Traders
NGOs
Public
Other Parties/International
meetings
Other (please specify)
1.6.3c In what ways do you collaborate with other CITES Parties?
Nev
er
Rar
ely
Som
etim
es
Ver
y O
fte
n
Alw
ays
Further detail /
examples
Information exchange
Monitoring / survey
Habitat management
Species management
Law enforcement
Capacity building
Other (please provide details)
Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade.
Aichi Target 4, Target 5, Target 6, Target 7, Target 9, Target
10, Target 12 and Target 19.
59
Indicator 1.7.1: The number of Parties that have, are covered by, or engaged with:
– an international enforcement strategy and/or action
plan;
– formal international cooperation, such as an
international enforcement network;
– a national enforcement strategy and/or action plan;
and
– formal national interagency cooperation, such as a
national interagency enforcement committee.
1.7.1a Do you have, are you engaged in, or covered by: Yes No
No
Information
– an international enforcement strategy and/or action plan?
– formal international cooperation, such as an international
enforcement network?
– a national enforcement strategy and/or action plan?
– formal national interagency cooperation, such as a national
interagency enforcement committee?
If ‘Yes’ to any of the above, please specify the level of engagement and provide additional
details:
Indicator 1.7.2: The number of Parties with a process or mechanism for reviewing their
enforcement strategies, and the activities taken to implement their strategies.
1.7.2a Do you have a process or mechanism for reviewing your
enforcement strategy(ies) and the activities taken to
implement your strategy(ies)?
Yes
No, but review is under
consideration
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, what do you do?
If ‘Yes’ or ‘No, but review is under consideration’, which tools do you find of value?
1.7.2b Have you used the International Consortium on Combating
Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic
Toolkit, or equivalent tools?
Yes
No, but toolkit use is under
consideration
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, please provide feedback on the parts of the toolkit used and how useful the toolkit or
equivalent tools have been. Please specify improvements that could be made:
60
If ‘No’, please provide feedback on why not or what is needed to make the toolkit or
equivalent tools useful to you:
Indicator 1.7.3: The number of Parties that have criminal (penal) law and procedures, capacity to
use forensic technology, and capacity to use specialized investigation techniques,
for investigating, prosecuting, and penalizing CITES offences..
1.7.3a Do you have law and procedures in place for investigating,
prosecuting, and penalizing CITES offences as a crime?
If ‘Yes’, please provide the title of the legislation and a
summary of the penalties available
Yes
No
No information
1.7.3b Are criminal offences such as poaching and wildlife trafficking
recognized as serious crime58 in your country?
Yes
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, please explain what criteria must be met for poaching or wildlife trafficking offences to
be treated as serious crimes:
1.7.3c Do you have capacity to use forensic technology59 to support
the investigation of CITES offences?
Yes
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, please provide a brief summary of any samples from CITES-listed species that were
collected and submitted to an appropriate forensic analysis facility (located in your country
and/or another country) during the period covered in this report:
If ‘Yes’, and your country has an appropriate forensic analysis facility for CITES-listed species,
please indicate which species it applies to:
1.7.3d Did your authorities participate in or initiate any multi-
disciplinary60 law enforcement operation(s) targeting CITES-
listed species during the period covered in this report?
Yes
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, please provide a brief summary, including any lessons learned which might be helpful
for other Parties:
1.7.3e Do you have a standard operating procedure among relevant
agencies for submitting information related to CITES offences
to INTERPOL and/or the World Customs Organization?
Yes
No
No information
58 The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime defines serious crime as conduct constituting an offence
punishable by imprisonment for at least four years or a more serious penalty.
59 Capacity to use forensic technology means the ability to collect, handle and submit samples from crime scenes involving CITES-listed species to an appropriate forensic analysis facility, located either in your country or in another country(ies).
60 A multi-disciplinary law enforcement operation is one that involves officers from all relevant enforcement disciplines as appropriate, for example officers from Police, Customs and the wildlife regulatory authority. It could be either sub-national, national or international in scope.
61
1.7.3f
Do you have legislative provisions for any of the
following that can be applied to the investigation,
prosecution and/or sentencing of CITES offences
as appropriate? Yes No
No
information
If yes, how many
times was this
used during the
period covered
by this report?
General crime61
Predicate offences62
Asset forfeiture63
Corruption64
International cooperation in criminal matters65
Organized crime66
Specialized investigation techniques67
If ‘Yes’ to any of the above, please explain how each is used for CITES offences? Please provide a
brief summary, including any lessons learned which might be helpful for other Parties:
1.7.3g Do you have institutional capacity to implement the legislative
provisions listed in question 1.7.3f against CITES offences?
Yes
No
No information
If ‘No’, please provide a brief summary of your major capacity-building needs:
Indicator 1.7.4: The number of Parties using risk assessment and intelligence to combat illegal
trade in CITES-listed species.
61 General crime laws relate to offences such as fraud, conspiracy, possession of weapons, and other matters as set out in the national
criminal code.
62 Article 2, paragraph (h) of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime defines a predicate offence is an offence whose proceeds may become the subject of any of the money-laundering offences established under the Convention.
63 Asset forfeiture is the seizure and confiscation of assets obtained from criminal activities to ensure that criminals do not benefit from the proceeds of their crimes.
64 Provisions against corruption include national laws to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption covering offences such as bribery of officials, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds, trading in influence and abuse of functions by public officials.
65 International cooperation in criminal matters includes legislation through which a formal request for mutual legal assistance and/or extradition of a person for criminal prosecution can be forwarded to another country.
66 Article 2, paragraph (a) of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime defines an organized criminal group as a structured group of three or more persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious crimes or offences established in accordance with the Convention, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit.
67 Specialized investigation techniques are techniques that are deployed against serious and/or organized crime when conventional law enforcement techniques fail to adequately address the activities of crime groups. Examples include controlled deliveries and covert operations.
62
1.7.4a Do you use risk assessment to target CITES enforcement effort? Always
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
No information
1.7.4b Do you have capacity to analyse information gathered on illegal
trade in CITES-listed species?
Yes
No
No information
1.7.4c Do you use criminal intelligence68 to inform investigations into
illegal trade in CITES-listed species?
Always
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
No information
1.74d Have you implemented any supply-side activities to address
illegal trade in CITES-listed species during the period covered in
this report?
Yes
No, but activities are
under development
No
No information
1.7.4e Have you implemented any demand-side activities to address
illegal trade in CITES-listed species during the period covered in
this report?
Yes
No, but activities are
under development
No
No information
68 Criminal intelligence is information that is compiled, analyzed and disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent and/or monitor
criminal activity. Examples include information on potential suspects held in a secure database and inferences about the methods, capabilities and intentions of specific criminal networks or individuals that are used to support effective law enforcement action.
63
Indicator 1.7.5: The number of administrative measures, criminal prosecutions and other court
actions for CITES-related offences.
During the period covered in this report:
Yes No No
Informatio
n
1.7.5a Have any administrative measures (e.g. fines, bans,
suspensions) been imposed for CITES-related offences?
If ‘Yes’, please indicate how many and for what types of offences. If available, please attach
details:
1.7.5b Have there been any criminal prosecutions of CITES-
related offences?
If ‘Yes’, how many and for what types of offences? If available, please attach details:
1.7.5c Have there been any other court actions against CITES-
related offences?
If ‘Yes’, what were the offences involved and what were the results? Please attach details:
1.7.5d How were any confiscated specimens disposed of? Tick all that apply
– Return to country of export
– Public zoos or botanical gardens
– Designated rescue centres
– Approved private facilities
– Euthanasia
– Other (please specify):
Have you encountered any challenges in disposing of confiscated specimens?
Do you have good practice that you would like to share with other Parties?
Objective 1.8 Parties and the Secretariat have adequate capacity-building programmes in place.
Aichi Target 1, Target 12 and Target 19.
Indicator 1.8.1: The number of Parties with national and regional training programmes and
information resources in place to implement CITES including the making of non-
detriment findings, issuance of permits and enforcement.
64
1.8.1a Do you have information resources or training in place to support:
Yes No
The making of non-detriment findings?
Permit officers?
Enforcement officers?
1.8.1b Is the CITES Virtual College used as part of your capacity building
work?
What improvements could be made in using the Virtual College
for capacity building?
Yes
No
No information
1.8.1c Is the ICCWC Wildlife and Forest Crime Toolkit used in the
development of capacity-building programmes, or does it form
part of the curriculum of such programmes?
What improvements could be made in using the ICCWC Toolkit for
capacity building?
Yes
No
No information
GOAL 2 SECURE THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MEANS FOR THE OPERATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION
Objective 2.1 Financial resources are sufficient to ensure operation of the Convention.
Information to be provided through records held by the Secretariat on financial management of the
Convention.
Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national and international levels to ensure
compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention.
Aichi Target 1, Target 2, Target 3, Target 12, Target 19 and
Target 20.
Indicator 2.2.1: The number of Parties with dedicated staff and funding for Management
Authorities, Scientific Authorities and wildlife trade enforcement agencies.
2.2.1a Do you have an approved service standard(s)69 for your
Management Authority(ies)?
If ‘No’, please go to Question 2.2.1d.
If ‘Yes’, for which services are there standards, and what are
those standards?
Yes
No
If ‘Yes’, do you have performance targets for these standards70?
If ‘Yes’, what are your performance targets?
Yes
No
69 For example, a time frame in which you are required to provide a response on a decision to issue or not issue a permit, certificate, or
re-export certificate.
70 For example, 85% of all decisions will take place within the service standard.
65
Do you publish your performance against service standard
targets?
Yes
No
If possible, please provide your performance against service
standards during the period covered in this report:
If you did not meet your performance targets then was this
shortfall a result of: Yes No
– availability of funding?
– number of staff?
– a shortage of skills?
If ‘Yes’ to a shortage of skills, which skills do you need more of?
2.2.1b Do you have an approved service standard(s)47 for your Scientific
Authority(ies)?
If ‘No’, please go to Question 2.2.1d.
If ‘Yes’, for which services are there standards, and what are
those standards?
Yes
No
If ‘Yes’, do you have performance targets for these standards48?
If ‘Yes’, what are your performance targets?
Yes
No
If possible, please provide your performance against service
standards during the period covered in this report:
If you did not meet your performance targets then was this
shortfall a result of: Yes No
– availability of funding?
– number of staff?
– a shortage of skills?
If ‘Yes’ to a shortage of skills, which skills do you need more of?
2.2.1c Do you have an approved service standard(s)47 for your
enforcement authority(ies)?
If ‘No’, please go to Question 2.2.1d.
If ‘Yes’, for which services are there standards, and what are
those standards?
Yes
No
If ‘Yes’, do you have performance targets for these standards48?
If ‘Yes’, what are your performance targets?
Yes
No
If possible, please provide your performance against service
standards during the period covered in this report:
If you did not meet your performance targets then was this
shortfall a result of: Yes No
66
– availability of funding?
– number of staff?
– a shortage of skills?
If ‘Yes’ to a shortage of skills, which skills do you need more of?
2.2.1d Please only complete this question if your answered ‘No’ to the first part of question 2.2.1a,
2.2.1b, or 2.2.1c, relating to the existence of approved service standards for your authorities:
Do you have sufficient of the following for your authorities to function effectively?
Management Authority(ies)
Scientific Authority(ies) Enforcement Authority(ies)
Funding? Yes No Yes No Yes No
Staff? Yes No Yes No Yes No
Skills? Yes No Yes No Yes No
Indicator 2.2.2: The number of Parties that have undertaken one or more of the following
activities:
– changed the budget for activities;
– hired more staff;
– developed implementation tools;
– purchased technical equipment for implementation,
monitoring or enforcement.
2.2.2a Have any of the following activities been undertaken during the period
covered in this report to enhance the effectiveness of CITES
implementation at the national level? Tick if applicable
Hiring of more staff
Development of implementation tools
Purchase of technical equipment for implementation, monitoring or
enforcement
Other (please specify):
2.2.2b During the period covered in this report, was
the budget for your: Increased Stable Decreased
Management Authority(ies)
Scientific Authority(ies)
Enforcement authorities
2.2.2c Have you been able to use international
development funding assistance to increase
the level of implementation of your
Yes No Not applicable
Management Authority(ies)?
Scientific Authority(ies)?
67
Enforcement authorities?
2.2.2d What is the respective level of priority for enhancing the effectiveness of CITES implementation
at the national level through the following activities?
Activity High Medium Low Not a Priority
Hiring of more staff
Development of implementation
tools
Purchase of new technical
equipment for implementation,
monitoring or enforcement
e-permitting
Other (please specify):
2.2.2e Do you have a operational system (e.g.
electronic database) for managing Yes
Under
development No
Species information
Trade information
Non-detriment findings
Indicator 2.2.3: The number of Parties raising funds for CITES implementation through user fees or
other mechanisms.
2.2.3a Does the Management Authority charge fees for: Tick all that are applicable
– Administrative procedures
– Issuance of CITES documents (e.g. for import, exports, re-export, or introduction
from the sea)
– Shipment clearance (e.g. for the import, export, re-export, or introduction from the
sea of CITES-listed species)
– Licensing or registration of operations that produce CITES species
– Harvesting of CITES-listed species
– Use of CITES-listed species
– Assignment of quotas for CITES-listed species
– Other (please specify):
2.2.3b Is a fee schedule publicly available? Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please provide an internet link, or a copy of the schedule to the Secretariat:
2.2.3c Have revenues from fees been used for the implementation of CITES or wildlife conservation?
Entirely
Partly
Not at all
68
Not relevant
2.2.3d Yes No
Do you raise funds for CITES management through charging user fees?
Do your fees recover the full economic cost of issuing permits?
Do you have case studies on charging or using fees?
If ‘Yes’ to any of the above, please provide brief details:
Do you use innovative financial mechanisms to raise funds for CITES
implementation?
If ‘Yes’, please provide brief details:
Indicator 2.2.4: The number of Parties using incentive measures as part of their implementation of
the Convention.
2.2.4a Do you use incentive measures71 such as those described in CoP14 Doc 14.32 to implement the
Convention?
Yes
No
Due diligence
Compensatory mechanisms
Certification
Communal property rights
Auctioning of quotas
Cost recovery or environmental charges
Enforcement incentives
If ‘Yes’ to any of the above, or if you use other measures, please provide a summary or link to
further information:
2.2.4b Have incentives harmful to biodiversity been eliminated?
Not at all
Very little
Somewhat
71 Defined as ‘Social and economic incentives that promote and regulate sustainable management of and responsible trade in, wild
flora and flora and promote effective enforcement of the Convention’. The intent of such measures is not to promote wildlife trade as such, but rather to ensure that any wildlife trade undertaken is conducted in a sustainable manner.
69
Completely
70
Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national and international levels to
implement capacity-building programmes.
Aichi Target 12, Target 19 and Target 20.
Indicator 2.3.1: The number of capacity building activities mandated by Resolutions and Decisions
that are fully funded.
2.3.1a How many training and capacity building activities72 have
you run during the period covered in this report?
Without
assistance from
the Secretariat
Conducted or
assisted by the
Secretariat
None
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
More than 20
Please list the Resolutions or Decisions involved:
2.3.1b What sorts of capacity building activities have taken place?
2.3.1c What capacity building needs do you have?
Please tick all boxes which apply to
indicate which target group and
which activity.
Target group Ora
l or
wri
tte
n
advi
ce/g
uid
ance
Tech
nic
al a
ssis
tan
ce
Fin
anci
al a
ssis
tan
ce
Trai
nin
g
Oth
er (
spec
ify)
Details
Staff of Management Authority
Staff of Scientific Authority
Staff of enforcement authorities
Traders / other user groups
NGOs
Public
Other (please specify)
72 An activity might be a single day training e.g. for a group of staff from the Management Authority, or a longer course / project
undertaken by an individual.
71
GOAL 3 CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING THE RATE OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND TO
ACHIEVING RELEVANT GLOBALLY-AGREED GOALS AND TARGETS BY ENSURING THAT CITES AND
OTHER MULTILATERAL INSTRUMENTS AND PROCESSES ARE COHERENT AND MUTUALLY
SUPPORTIVE
Objective 3.1 Cooperation between CITES and international financial mechanisms and other
related institutions is enhanced in order to support CITES-related conservation and
sustainable development projects, without diminishing funding for currently
prioritized activities.
Aichi Target 2 and Target 20.
Indicator 3.1.1: The number of Parties funded by international financial mechanisms and other
related institutions to develop activities that include CITES-related conservation
and sustainable development elements.
3.1.1a Has funding from international financial mechanisms and other
related institutions been used to develop activities that include
CITES-related conservation and sustainable development
elements?
Yes
No
Not applicable
No information
If ‘Yes’, please provide brief details:
3.1.1b During the period covered in this report, has funding for your
country from international funding mechanisms and other related
institutions:
Increased
Remained stable
Decreased
Indicator 3.1.2: The number of countries and institutions that have provided additional funding
from CITES Authorities to another country or activity for conservation and
sustainable development projects in order to further the objectives of the
Convention.
72
3.1.2a Have you provided technical or financial assistance to another
country or countries in relation to CITES?
Yes
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, please tick boxes to
indicate type of assistance
provided
Country(ies) Spec
ies
Man
agem
ent7
3
Hab
itat
Man
agem
ent7
4
Sust
ain
able
use
Law
En
forc
emen
t
Live
liho
od
s
Oth
er (
spec
ify)
Details
(provide more
information in an
Appendix if
necessary)
Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally.
Aichi Target 1, Target 4, Target 12 and Target 18.
Indicator 3.2.1: The number of Parties that have been involved in CITES awareness raising activities
to bring about better awareness by the wider public and relevant user groups of
the Convention requirements.
3.2.1a Have CITES authorities been involved in any of the following
activities to bring about better awareness of the Convention’s
requirements by the wider public and relevant user groups?
Wider
public
Relevant
User
Groups
– Press conferences
– Press releases
– Newspaper articles, brochures, leaflets
– Television appearances
– Radio appearances
– Presentations
– Public consultations / meetings
– Market surveys
– Displays
73 Use species conservation column for work directly related to species – e.g. population surveys, education programmes, conflict
resolution, etc.
74 Use habitat conservation column for work that will indirectly support species conservation – e.g. habitat management, development of policy frameworks for how land is managed, etc.
73
– Information at border crossing points
– Telephone hotline
– Website(s) – if so please provide link(s)
– Other (specify):
Please attach copies of any items or describe examples:
Indicator 3.2.2: The number of visits to the CITES website.
3.2.2a How regularly do your Authorities consult the CITES website?
Please tick boxes to indicate the most
frequent usage (decide on an average
amongst staff if necessary).
Target group Dai
ly
We
ekly
Mo
nth
ly
Less
fre
qu
entl
y
No
t kn
ow
n
Staff of Management Authority
Staff of Scientific Authority
Staff of enforcement authorities
3.2.2b What has been your experience with using the CITES website? Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor
No information
Any further comments on the CITES Website? (e.g. useful aspects, any difficulties
encountered, which authorities find which functions/tools most useful, what is missing, etc):
74
Indicator 3.2.3: The number of Parties with web pages on CITES and its requirements.
A question relating to this indicator is within question 3.2.1a.
Objective 3.3 Cooperation with relevant international environmental, trade and development
organizations is enhanced.
Indicator 3.3.1 The number of Parties which report that they have achieved synergies in their
implementation of CITES, other biodiversity-related conventions and other
relevant multilateral environmental, trade and development agreements.
3.3.1a Have measures been taken to achieve coordination and reduce
duplication of activities between the national CITES authorities and
national focal points for other multilateral environmental
agreements (e.g. the other biodiversity-related conventions: CBD,
CMS, ITPGR, Ramsar, WHC)75 to which your country is party?
Yes
No
No information
If ‘Yes’, please give a brief description:
Indicator 3.3.2: The number of biodiversity conservation or sustainable use projects, trade and
development goals, or scientific and technical programmes that integrate CITES
requirements.
3.3.2a How many international projects which integrate CITES issues has your country
contributed towards?
3.3.2b In addition to 3.2.2a, how many national level projects has your country
implemented which integrate CITES issues?
3.3.2c Have there been any efforts at a national scale for your CITES
Management or Scientific Authorities to collaborate with: Yes No
Agencies for development?
Agencies for trade?
Provincial, state or territorial authorities?
Local authorities or communities?
Indigenous or local peoples?
Trade or other private sector associations?
NGOs?
Other (please specify)
3.3.2d Are CITES requirements integrated into? Yes No
National and local development strategies?
75 CBD = Convention on Biological Diversity; CMS = Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals,
ITPGR = International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Ramsar = The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, WHC = World Heritage Convention.
75
National and local poverty reduction strategies?
Planning processes?
National accounting?
76
Indicator 3.3.3: The number of Parties cooperating / collaborating with intergovernmental and
non-governmental organizations to participate in and/or fund CITES workshops
and other training and capacity-building activities.
3.3.3a Has funding been provided or received to facilitate
CITES workshops, training or other capacity building
activities to / from:
Tick if
applicable
Which
organizations?
Inter-governmental organizations?
Non-governmental organizations?
Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals, the
sustainable development goals set at WSSD, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011-2020 and the relevant Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the relevant outcomes
of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development is strengthened by
ensuring that international trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted at
sustainable levels.
This objective may also be assessed by a variety of means
beyond the reporting format, including action taken to implement many of the
CITES resolutions and decisions.
Aichi Target 1, Target 2, Target 3, Target 4, Target 5, Target 6,
Target 7, Target 12, Target 14, Target 17, Target 18 and Target 19.
Indicator 3.4.1: The conservation status of species listed on the CITES Appendices has stabilized or
improved.
3.4.1a Do you have data which shows that the conservation
status of naturally occurring species in your country listed
on the CITES Appendices has stabilized or improved? Yes No Not Applicable
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
If there are such studies that you are willing to share, please provide:
Species name (scientific) Link to the data, or a brief summary
3.4.1b Do you have examples of specific examples of success stories or emerging problems with any CITES listed species?
If ‘Yes’, please provide details:
Yes
No
No information
77
Indicator 3.4.2: The number of Parties incorporating CITES into their National Biodiversity Strategy
and Action Plan (NBSAP).
3.4.2a Has CITES been incorporated into your country’s National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)?
Yes
No
No information
3.4.2b Have you been able to obtain funds from the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) or other sources to support CITES aspects of NBSAP
implementation?
Yes
No
No information
78
Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international
organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources, as appropriate, in
order to achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be
endangered by unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially
exploited.
Aichi Target 2, Target 4, Target 5, Target 6, Target 7, Target
10, Target 12, Target 14 and Target 19.
Indicator 3.5.1: The number of cooperative actions taken under established bilateral or
multilateral agreements to prevent species from being unsustainably exploited
through international trade.
3.5.1a Has your country taken action under established bilateral or
multilateral agreements other than CITES to prevent species from
being unsustainably exploited through international trade?
If ‘Yes’, please provide details:
Yes
No
No information
Indicator 3.5.2: The number of times other relevant international organizations and agreements
dealing with natural resources are consulted on issues relevant to species subject
to unsustainable trade.
3.5.2a
Average number of times per year
that international organizations or
agreements have been consulted
by CITES Authorities On
ce
2-5
tim
es
6-2
0 t
imes
Mo
re t
han
20
tim
es
No
co
nsu
ltat
ion
Optional comment
about which
organizations and issues
consulted on
Management Authority(ies)
Scientific Authority(ies)
Enforcement Authority(ies)
General feedback
Please provide any additional comments you would like to make, including comments on this
format.
Item
Copy of full text of CITES-relevant legislation if changed
Web link(s)
Enclosed
Not available
Previously provided
Please list any materials annexed to the report, e.g. fee schedules, awareness raising materials, etc:
Have any constraints to implementation of the Convention arisen in
your country requiring attention or assistance?
Yes
No
No Information
79
If ‘Yes’, please describe the constraint and the type of attention or assistance that is required.
Are there examples of good practice you would like to share with
other Parties?
Yes
No
No Information
If ‘Yes’ please provide details / links:
How could this report format be improved?
Thank you for completing the report. Please remember to include relevant attachments referred to
in the report when it is submitted to the Secretariat.
80
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
1.1.1a New CITES relevant policies or legislation developed
N N N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y
If yes, shared information with the Secretariat
Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y
1.1.1b Easy amendment of national law(s) to reflect changes in the CITES Appendices
N Y N N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y
1.2.1a Developed standard operating procedures for application/issuance of permits
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
The procedures publicly available
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
1.2.1b Electronic data management and a paper-based permit issuance system
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
Electronic permit information exchange between MA of some countries
N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N
Electronic permit information exchange to MA of all countries
N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N
Electronic permit data exchange between MA and customs
N N N Y Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N
Electronic permit used to cross border with electronic validation by customs
Y N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Plans to move towards e-permitting
N N N Y N Y Y N O O Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
1.2.2a Developed simplified procedures - biological samples of the type and size in Annex 4
N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y
81
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
Developed simplified procedures - issuance of pre-Convention certificates
N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y
Developed simplified procedures - issuance of certificates of captive breeding or artificial propagation
N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y
Developed simplified procedures - issuance of (re-)export permits for specimens referred to in Article VII, para 4 (captive breeding/artificial propagation of App. I listed species)
N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y
Developed simplified procedures - other procedures that merit being simplified
N N N N N Y Y N O Y N Y Y N Y Y N O Y N N N N Y O N O
1.3.1b Encountered difficulties in implementing Resolutions/Decisions
N N N N N N N N N Y N Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y
1.4.1a Identified benefit of CITES-listing from review
N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N Y Y N N N N Y
1.5.1a Surveys/studies/analyses undertaken - population status of Appendix II species
N N X N Y Y N Y X Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Surveys/studies/analyses undertaken - trends and impact of trade on Appendix II species
N N X N N X N N X Y N N Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y
1.5.1a (cont.) Surveys/studies/analyses undertaken - status/trend in naturally-occurring Appendix I species
N N X N Y Y N Y X Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N X
Surveys/studies/analyses undertaken - impact of N N X N Y Y N X X Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N X
82
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
any recovery plans on Appendix I species
Integration of relevant knowledge and expertise of local/indigenous communities into the surveys/studies/analyses
X N X N X Y N N X Y X N Y X X N N X Y X X N N N Y N Y X
1.5.1c Specific conservation measures or recovery plans for naturally occurring Appendix I-listed species
X N Y N Y Y N N O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y X N Y Y X
1.5.1d Publication of NDFs N Y N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
1.5.1e Following (A-F) used in making NDFs
A. scientific literature concerning species biology, life history, distribution and population trends
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
B. details of any ecological risk assessments conducted
Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y
C. scientific surveys conducted at harvest locations and at sites protected from harvest and other impacts
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
D. relevant knowledge and expertise of local and indigenous communities
Y Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y
E. consultations with relevant local, regional and international experts
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
F. national and international trade information
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y
1.5.2a Developed standard procedures for making NDFs
N Y N O Y Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N N Y N O Y N Y
83
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
1.5.3a Establishment of annual export quota
N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N N N N N N Y N Y Y N N N N
1.5.3b Establishment of annual export quota at levels to ensure sustainable production and consumption
N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N
1.6.1a Signatory to any bilateral or multilateral agreements for co-management of shared species
N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
1.6.2a Cooperative management plans in place for shared population of CITES-listed species
N N Y N N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
1.7.1a Developed international enforcement strategy and/or action plan
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
Engaged in formal international cooperation
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y O
Developed national enforcement strategy and/or action plan
Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Engaged in formal national interagency cooperation
Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N O Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
1.7.3a Law and procedures in place for investigating, prosecuting and penalizing CITES offences
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
1.7.3b Recognition of poaching and wildlife trafficking as serious crime
N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y
1.7.3c Capacity to use forensic technology to support the investigation
Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y O O Y O N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
1.7.3d Participation in multi-disciplinary law enforcement operations
Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y O Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y
84
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
targeting CITES-listed species
1.7.3e Developed a standard operating procedure for submitting information related to CITES offences to INTERPOL/WCO
Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y O O Y Y N Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
1.7.3f Legislative provisions for the following that can be applied to CITES offences
General crime Y Y Y N Y O Y N O Y Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y O Y
Predicate offences Y Y O N Y O Y N O Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y N N Y O Y
Asset forfeiture Y Y Y N Y Y Y N O Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y O Y
Corruption Y Y N N Y O Y N O Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y O Y
International cooperation in criminal matters
Y O N Y Y Y N O Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y O Y
Organized crime Y Y O N Y Y Y N O Y Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y O Y
Specialized investigation techniques
Y O N Y N N O Y Y Y O O Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y O Y
1.7.3g Institutional capacity to implement the legislative provisions listed in 1.7.3f
Y Y Y N N O N Y O Y Y Y O O O Y O Y Y O Y O Y N Y Y N Y
1.7.4b Capacity to analyse information gathered on illegal trade in CITES-listed species
Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N O Y O N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y
1.7.5a Administrative measures imposed for CITES-related offences
Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y
1.7.5b Criminal prosecutions of CITES-related offences undertaken
Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
1.7.5c Other court actions against CITES-related offences undertaken
Y O Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N O Y
85
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
1.8.1a Information resources or training in place for the making of NDFs
Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y
Information resources or training in place for permit officers
Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y
Information resources or training in place for enforcement officers
Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y
1.8.1b CITES Virtual College used for capacity building
N Y N N N N N N N Y N N O N N N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y
1.8.1c ICCWC Wildlife and Forest Crime Toolkit used for capacity building programmes
N N N N O N N N O N O N O N N N N N Y N O N Y N N N N N
2.2.1a Approved service standard(s) for MA
Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
Performance targets for these standards
Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y
2.2.1a (cont.) Publication of performance against service standard targets
N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N
If the performance targets were not met, it was a result of:
a. availability of funding
N N Y N N N Y N N N
b. number of staff N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
c. a shortage of skills N N N N N Y N N N
2.2.1b Approved service standard(s) for SA
N Y N Y Y N N N Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Y N N Y
Performance targets for these standards
N N N Y N N Y N Y Y
If the performance targets were not met, it was a result of:
a. availability of funding
N Y N Y N N
b. number of staff N Y N Y Y Y N
c. a shortage of skills Y N N Y N N
86
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
2.2.1c Approved service standard(s) for enforcement authorities
N Y N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N N Y N Y N N N Y Y
Performance targets for these standards
N N Y N Y Y N Y N
If the performance targets were not met, it was a result of:
a. availability of funding
Y Y N
b. number of staff Y Y Y Y
c. a shortage of skills Y N
2.2.1d If answers were no to the first question 2.2.1a, 2.2.1b and 2.2.1c
Sufficient funding for MA
Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Sufficient staff for MA N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N
Sufficient skills for MA Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y
Sufficient funding for SA Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y
Sufficient staff for SA Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y
Sufficient skills for SA Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y
Sufficient funding for enforcement authorities
Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y N N
Sufficient staff for enforcement authorities
Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N N
Sufficient skills for enforcement authorities
Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N
2.2.2c International development funding assistance for MA
X X N N N X X N N N X N X N N N N N X N X X N N X X X X
International development funding assistance for SA
X X N N N X X N N N X N X N N N N N X N X X N N X X X N
International development funding assistance for enforcement authorities
X X N N X X N N N X N X N X N N N X N X X N N X X X X
2.2.3b Fee schedule publicly available
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
87
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
2.2.3d Raised funds for CITES management through charging user fees
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N Y N Y
Recovery of the full economic cost of issuing permits by fees
N N Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N
Case studies on charging or using fees
N N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N
Innovative financial mechanisms used to raise funds for CITES implementation
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N
2.2.4a Incentive measures - due diligence
N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y N
Incentive measures - compensatory mechanisms
N N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N
Incentive measures - certification
N N Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N
Incentive measures - communal property rights
N Y N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N
Incentive measures - auctioning of quotas
N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Incentive measures - cost recovery or environmental charges
N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N
Incentive measures - enforcement incentives
N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N Y N N
3.1.1a Funding from international financial mechanisms used to develop activities that include CITES-related elements
X O N N Y N N N N O N X Y N N N Y N N N X O Y N X X X X
3.1.2a Provided technical or financial assistance to other countries
Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N N Y
3.3.1a Taken measures to achieve coordination and reduce duplication between CITES and other MEAs
N Y Y O N Y Y N O Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y O Y
88
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
3.3.2c Efforts to collaborate with agencies for development
N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N
Efforts to collaborate with agencies for trade
N N N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y
Efforts to collaborate with provincial, state or territorial authorities
Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Efforts to collaborate with local authorities or communities
N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y Y N Y N N
Efforts to collaborate with indigenous or local peoples
N N N N Y N N N N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N
Efforts to collaborate with trade or other private sector associations
Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Efforts to collaborate with NGOs
Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y X Y
Efforts to collaborate with other
N Y N Y N Y
3.3.2d Integration of CITES requirements into national/local development strategies
N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N
Integration of CITES requirements into national/local poverty reduction strategies
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Integration of CITES requirements into planning processes
N N N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N
3.3.2d (cont.) Integration of CITES requirements into national accounting
N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N
3.4.1a Data to show the conservation status of naturally occurring CITES-listed species has stabilized/improved - Appendix I
Y Y Y Y Y X Y Y X Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y X X N N Y
89
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
Data to show the conservation status of naturally occurring CITES-listed species has stabilized/improved - Appendix II
Y Y Y Y Y Y X Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Data to show the conservation status of naturally occurring CITES-listed species has stabilized/improved - Appendix III
X X Y Y Y X X X N X X X X X Y
3.4.1b Examples of success stories or emerging problems
Y O N O O O N Y N O N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N N Y
3.4.2a Incorporating of CITES into National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3.4.2b Funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) or other sources for NBSAP implementation
O N N N N O N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
3.5.1a Actions undertaken under bilateral/multilateral agreement to prevent over-exploitation through international trade
N O N N N N N N O Y Y Y Y O Y Y N N N Y Y N Y N O O Y
General feedback Constraints to implementation arisen that require attention/assistance
N N N Y N N O N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N N Y
Examples of good practice to share with other Parties
N N N N O N O Y N N N O O N N Y N Y N N N O O
Y -Yes N – No O - No information
90
X - Not applicable Left blank
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 Total
1.3.1a Responses provided to relevant special reporting requirements
Responses provided to All requirements 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Responses provided to SOME requirements 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Responses provided to NONE of requirements 1 1 No special reporting requirements applicable 1 1 2
1.5.1b Result of surveys/studies/analyses used in making NDFs
Revised harvest/export quotas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Banning export
1 1 1 3 Stricter domestic measures 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Changed management of the species 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Discussion with MA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Discussion with other stakeholders 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Other 1 1 2
1.5.2b Guidance used for establishing NDFs
Virtual College 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
IUCN Checklist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21
Resolution Conf. 16.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
2008 NDF workshop 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Species specific guidance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
1.5.2c Case by case 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
91
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 Total
Frequency to review or change the NDFs
Annually 1 1 2
Every two years 0
less frequently 0
A mix of the above 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
1.6.3a CITES authorities received following activities Staff of MA Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Technical assistance
1 1 2 Financial assistance
0 Training
1 1 1 3 Other
1 1 2 Staff of SA Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Technical assistance
1 1 Financial assistance
1 1 Training
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Other
1 1 Staff of enforcement authorities
Oral or written advice/guidance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Technical assistance
1 1 Financial assistance
0 Training
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Other
1 1 1 3 Traders Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 2 Technical assistance
1 1 2 Financial assistance
0 Training
1 1 Other
0 NGOs Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 1 3 Technical assistance
1 1 Financial assistance
0 Training
0
92
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 Total
Other
0 Public Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 2 Technical assistance
1 1 2 Financial assistance
0 Training
0 Other
0 Other Oral or written
advice/guidance 0 Technical assistance
0 Financial assistance
0 Training
0 Other
0
1.6.3b CITES authorities provided activities by external sources Staff of MA Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 1 1 1 5 Technical assistance
1 1 2 Financial assistance
1 1 Training
1 1 1 1 4 Other
0 Staff of SA Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Technical assistance
1 1 2 Financial assistance
0 Training
1 1 1 1 1 5 Other
1 1 Staff of enforcement authorities
Oral or written advice/guidance 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Technical assistance
1 1 2 Financial assistance
1 1 Training
1 1 1 1 1 5 Other
1 1 Traders Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 2
93
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 Total
Technical assistance
1 1 Financial assistance
0 Training
1 1 Other
0 NGOs Oral or written
advice/guidance 0 Technical assistance
0 Financial assistance
1 1 2 Training
0 Other
0 Public Oral or written
advice/guidance 1 1 Technical assistance
0 Financial assistance
0 Training
0 Other
0 Other Parties/international meetings
Oral or written advice/guidance 0 Technical assistance
0 Financial assistance
1 1 Training
0 Other
0 Other Oral or written
advice/guidance 0 Technical assistance
0 Financial assistance
0 Training
0 Other
1 1 1 1 4
1.6.3c Collaboration with other CITES Parties - information exchange
Never 0
Rarely 0
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Very often 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Always 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
94
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 Total
Collaboration with other CITES Parties - monitoring/survey
Never 1 1 1 1 4
Rarely 1 1 1 1 1 5
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Very often 1 1 1 1 4
Always 0
Collaboration with other CITES Parties - habitat management
Never 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Rarely 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 4
Very often 1 1
Always 0
Collaboration with other CITES Parties - species management
Never 1 1 1 1 4
Rarely 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Very often 1 1 1 3
Always 0
Collaboration with other CITES Parties - law enforcement
Never 1 1
Rarely 1 1 1 3
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Very often 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Always 1 1
Collaboration with other CITES Parties - capacity building
Never 1 1 1 1 1 5
Rarely 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Very often 1 1 1 1 4
Always 1 1
Collaboration - other
1 1 2
1.7.2a Developed process or mechanism for reviewing enforcement strategies and activities
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
No, but review is under consideration
1 1 2
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
No information 1 1 1 3
95
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 Total
1.7.2b Usage of ICCWC Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit
Yes 1 1 1 3
No, but toolkit use is under consideration
1 1 1 1 1 5
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
No information 1 1 1 1 1 5
1.7.4a Risk assessment used to target CITES enforcement effort
Always 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Very often 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Rarely 0
Never 1 1
No information 1 1
1.7.4c Criminal intelligence used to inform investigations
Always 1 1 1 3
Very often 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Sometimes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Rarely 1 1 1 1 4
Never 1 1 2
No information 1 1 1 1 4
1.7.4d Supply-side activities to address illegal trade
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
No, but activities are under development
0
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
No information 1 1 2
1.7.4e Demand-side activities to address illegal trade
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
No, but activities are under development 1 1 No
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
No information 1 1 2
1.7.5d Methods used to dispose of confiscated specimens
Return to country of export 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 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 1 24 Designated rescue centre 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Approved private facilities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Euthanasia
1 1 1 1 1 5
96
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 Total
Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
2.2.2a Activities undertaken to enhance effectiveness of CITES implementation
Hiring of more staff 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Development of implementation tools
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Purchase of technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
2.2.2b Budget for MA Increased 1 1 1 3
Stable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
Decreased 1 1 1 1 4
Budget for SA Increased 1 1 1 3
Stable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
Decreased 1 1
Budget for enforcement authority
Increased 1 1 1 3
Stable 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21
Decreased 1 1
2.2.2d Priority for enhancing the effectiveness through hiring more staff
High 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Low 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Not a priority 1 1 1 1 4
Priority of development of implementation tools
High 1 1 1 1 1 5
Medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Low 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Not a priority 1 1 1 3
Priority of purchase of new technological equipment
High 1 1 2
Medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Low 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Not a priority 1 1 1 1 4
Priority of e-permitting
High 1 1 1 1 4
Medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Low 1 1 1 3
Not a priority 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
97
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 Total
Priority of other High
1 1 1 3 Medium
1 1 2 Low
0
Not a priority 0
2.2.2e Operational system for managing species information
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18
Under development 0
No
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Operational system for managing trade information
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
Under development 0
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Operational system for managing NDFs
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Under development 1 1 1 3
No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18
2.2.3a Fees the MA charges for
Administrative procedures 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 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 Shipment clearance
1 1 2 Licensing/registration of operations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Harvesting of CITES-listed species 1 1 2 Use of CITES-listed species 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Assignment of quotas for CITES-listed species 1 1
Other 1 1 1 3
2.2.3c Revenues from fees used for implementation of CITES/conservation
Entirely 1 1 1
3 Partly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Not at all 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 7
Not relevant 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 6
2.2.4b Harmful incentives eliminated
Not at all 1 1
Very little 1 1 2
98
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 Total
Somewhat 1 1 1 1 4
Completely 1 1 1 1 4
2.3.1a No. of training and capacity building activities undertaken Without assistance from the Secretariat
None 1 1 1 1 4
1 0
2-5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
6-10 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
11-20 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
More than 20 1 1 1 3
No. of training and capacity building activities undertaken Conducted or assisted by the Secretariat
None 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
1 1 1
2-5 0
6-10 0
11-20 0
More than 20 0
2.3.1c Capacity needs for Staff of MA
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Technical assistance 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 9 Financial assistance 1 1 1 1 4 Training 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Other 1 1
Capacity needs for Staff of SA
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Technical assistance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Financial assistance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Training 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Other 1 1
Capacity needs for Staff of enforcement authorities
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Technical assistance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Financial assistance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
99
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 Total
Training 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Other 0
Capacity needs for traders/other user groups
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
Technical assistance 1 1 2 Financial assistance 0 Training 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Other 1 1
Capacity needs for NGOs
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Technical assistance 0 Financial assistance 1 1 2 Training 1 1 1 3 Other 1 1
Capacity needs for Public
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Technical assistance 0 Financial assistance 0 Training 1 1 1 1 4 Other 1 1 1 1 1 5
Capacity needs for other
Oral or written advice/guidance
1 1
Technical assistance 0 Financial assistance 0 Training 1 1
Other 0
3.1.1b Funding from international funding mechanisms
Increased 1 1
Remained stable 1 1 1 1 1 5
Decreased 0
3.2.1a CITES authorities involved in public awareness activities
Wider public
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
100
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 Total
Press conferences
Relevant user groups 1 1 2
Press releases Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 5
Newspaper, brochures, leaflets
Wider public 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
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
TV Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
Relevant user groups 1 1
Radio Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
Relevant user groups 1 1
Presentations Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
Public consultations/meetings
Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Market surveys Wider public 1 1 1 1 4
Relevant user groups 1 1
Displays Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Information at border crossing points
Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 3
Telephone hotline
Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 5
Websites Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 1 5
Other Wider public 1 1 1 1 1 5
Relevant user groups 1 1 1 1 4
3.2.2a Frequency of the CITES website used by MA
Daily 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
Weekly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Monthly 1 1
101
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 Total
Less frequently
0 Not known
0 Frequency of CITES website used by SA
Daily 1 1 1 1 1 5
Weekly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Monthly 1 1 1 3
Less frequently 1 1
Not known 1 1 1 1 4
Frequency of the CITES website used by enforcement authorities
Daily 1 1 2
Weekly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Monthly 1 1 1 3
Less frequently 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Not known 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
3.2.2b Experience with using the CITES website
Excellent 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Good 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
Average 1 1 1 3
Poor 0
Very poor 0
No information 0
3.3.2a No. of international projects integrating CITES issues
2 0 14 0 0 0 - 1 1 4 0 4 2 2 6
3.3.2b No. of national level projects integrating CITES issues
5 0 0 10 1 0 - 2 0 0 8 3 9
3.3.3a Funding for capacity building activities to/from IGOs
1 1 1 1 4
102
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 Total
Funding for capacity building activities to/from NGOs
1 1 1 1 4
3.5.2a Average No. per year that international organizations/agreements consulted by MA
Once 0
2-5 times 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
6-20 times 1 1 2
More than 20 times 1 1 2
No consultation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Average No. per year that international organizations/agreements consulted by SA
Once 0
2-5 times 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
6-20 times 1 1 1 3
More than 20 times 1 1
No consultation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Average No. per year that international organizations/agreements consulted by enforcement authorities
Once 0
2-5 times 1 1 1 3
6-20 times 1 1 1 1 1 5
More than 20 times 1 1 2
No consultation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
General feedback
Copy of full text of CITES-relevant legislation
Enclosed 1 1 1 1 1 5
Not available 1 1 1 3
Previously provided 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
I - yes Blank – no answer
103
ANNEX 4: List of surveys, studies or analyses undertaken, and their results (where
applicable), related to question 1.5.1a by EU Member States in 2015-2017
CZ Ongoing monitoring of NATURA 2000, preparation for management plans, evaluation
and update on species, including Lutra lutra, Canis lupus, Lynx lynx.
DE Monitoring of Canis lupus, Lynx lynx and Ursus arctos76
Protection programme for the Aquila pomarine77.
Various studies on Lutra lutra78.
Stock assessment of Anguilla anguilla79.
EE Regular population monitoring for Canis lupus, Ursus arctos, Lynx lynx, Ciconia nigra and
various birds of prey.
FI Studies on population status of Ursus arctos, Canis Lupus and Lynx lynx.
Studies on the status of and trend in Appendix I listed species, such as Lutra lutra, sea-
eagle, Falco peregrinus and Falco rusticolus.
FR Monitoring species populations including, Panthera onca, sea turtles, Lutra lutra, Ursus
arctos, Lynx lynx, Canis Lupus, Felis sylvestris.
HR Research on estimated population size and trend of Ursus arctos
Research on species distribution of Lynx lynx
Ongoing research on population of Canis lupus
Data collection on mortality trends of Cetacea spp., Chelonia mydas, Caretta caretta,
Dermochelys coriacea.
Study on Hirudo medicinalis and Hirudo verbena published in 201780.
HU Monitoring programme of rare and colonially-nesting birds;
Common Bird Monitoring Programme covering species of raptor;
Regular population monitoring of Branta ruficollis;
Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System (HBMS) for Lynx lynx, Canis lupus, Ursus
arctos, Cypripedium calceolus, Liparis loeselii, Himantoglossum jankae, Himantoglossum
adriaticum, Ophrys insectifera, Ophrys sphegodes, Galanthus nivalis
Conservation programme to breed Vipera ursinii
IE A 2017 breeding survey on Falco peregrinus.
LT Population monitoring of various species. Results indicate stable conservation status for
Haliaeetus albicilla, Grus grus, Circus aeruginosus; inadequate conservation status:
Ciconia nigra, Milvus migrans, Aquila pomarine, Strix uralnensis, Pernis apivorus, Circus
pygargus, Pandion haliaetus; and declining conservation status: Bubo bubo, Glaucidium
passerinum, Assio flammeus.
LV National species conservation plans for Ursus arctos, Lynx lynx, Lutra lutra and Canis
lupus, which are subject to permanent population monitoring.
NL Yearly monitoring of nesting beaches on Chelonidae spp. (Caretta caretta, Chelonia
mydas, Eretmochelys imbricate, Dermochelys coriacea);
76 https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/service/Dokumente/skripten/Skript413.pdf 77 https://www.deutschewildtierstiftung.de/naturschutz/das-schreiadlerschutzprogramm 78 https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/natura2000/Dokumente/Mam_Lutrlutr.pdf 79 https://www.thuenen.de/en/fi/projects/improving-management-with-new-data/ 80 http://www.haop.hr/sites/default/files/uploads/dokumenti/2017-12/Strucna_podloga-
Pravilnik_o_održivom_korištenju_divljih_vrsta-skraceno_v3-fin_za_web.pdf
104
Yearly coral reef surveys, including Scleractinia spp.;
Yearly population surveys on Phoenicopterus ruber and Amazona barbadensis.
PL Various species population surveys. Results indicate increased population of Haliaeetus
albicilla, Falco peregrinus, Lutra lutra, Milvus milvus, Grus grus, Glaucidium passerinum,
Strix uralensis, Bubo bubo, Canis lupus; Stable population of Hirudo medicinalis, Pernis
apivorus, Aquila pomarina, Aquila chrysaetos, Circus aeruginosus, Accipiter gentilis,
Milvus migrans, Buteo buteo, Falco tinnunculus, Falco Subbuteo, Ursus arctos, Felis
silvestris.
PT Various species population surveys. Results indicate increased population for Lynx
pardinus, Aquila adalberti, Aegypius monachus; stable populations of Canis lupus,
Tursiops truncates, Hieraaetus fasciatus, Otis tarda and declining populations of
Neophron percnopterus, Hippocampus guttulatus, Hippocampus hippocampus.
SI Various species population surveys. Results indicate increased population for Ursus
acrtos, Canis lupus; stable population for Bubo bubo; declining population of Otus scops.
Population of Lynx lynx facing extinction at the national level.
SK Genetic study to determine the actual population size of Brown Bear Ursus arctos, which
was published in 2016.
Study to estimate recruitment of Wolf Canis lupus population since 2016
Study to estimate population size of Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx
UK UK Biodiversity Indicators81
81 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1824
105
ANNEX 5: The list of conservation measures or recovery plans for naturally occurring
Appendix I listed species by Member States in 2015-2017 (1.5.1c)
BG Action Plan for the Protection of Pelecanus crispus 2013–2022.
Action Plan for the Protection of the Aquila heliacal 2013–202282.
CZ Recovery plan for Lutra lutra.
DE Concepts for selected species and habitat types of the Habitats Directive to improve the
conservation status of Natura 2000 protected species in the Atlantic biogeographical
region (https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/service/Dokumente/skripten/Skript449.pdf)
and Lutra lutra
(https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/natura2000/Dokumente/Mam_Lutrlutr.pdf)
ES Conservation strategies for various species
(http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-
especies/especies-proteccion-especial/ce-proteccion-estrategia.aspx) and
(http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/publicaciones/pbl-fauna-flora-
estrategia-list-arbol.aspx).
FR National action plans for species listed in CITES Appendix I including Vipera ursini, sea
turtles Cheloniidae spp. from the French West Indies (Guadeloupe & Martinique,
French Guiana, French territories of the South-West Indian), Acipenser sturio and the
Dugong dugon83.
HR Draft National Action Plan for Cetaceans and Draft National Action Plan for Sea Turtles
within the NETCET project84 and strategies for the conservation of cetaceans and sea
turtles Cheloniidae spp. in the Adriatic Sea for the period 2016-2025.
HU Measures for Aquila heliacal, including training and involvement in field surveys of anti-
poisoning dog unit in Central Europe.
LU Special conservation and protection measures for naturally occurring species, including
Falco peregrinus.
LV National species conservation plans for Lutra lutra.
NL Monitoring of the conservation measures for Lutra lutra.
PT Iberian Lynx Lynx pardinus and Aquila adalberti.
SI Management plans for Ursus arctos, Canis lupus and Lynx lynx. Populations of Ursus
arctos and Canis lupus have increased and higher culling quotas are possible.
82 https://www.moew.government.bg/bg/priroda/biologichno-raznoobrazie/zastiteni-vidove/planove-za-dejstvie/ 83 https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/plans-nationaux-dactions-en-faveurdes-especes-menacees 84 http://www.netcet.eu/
106
ANNEX 6: Penalties Summary table of penalties and sanctions in relation to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the
environment through criminal law in EU Member States
Abbreviations/Notes: All fines are based on those imposed on individuals, unless otherwise specified (i.e. for organised criminal groups).
Min. – Minimum; Max. – Maximum; ca. – approximate; Ind. – Individuals; OCG – organised criminal groups; Int. – Intent; Neg – Negligence. MS Legislation Fines (natural person)
(EUR) Fines (legal person)
(EUR) Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
AT Species Trade Act of 16th March 2010
80 000 80 000
Min. Max. 5 years
Min. Max. 5 years
BE Law of 28 July 1981 (as amended); Law of 27 December 2012
156
300 000 26
50 000 156
300 000 26 50 000 Min. 6 months Max. 5 years
Min. 6 months Max. 5 years
BG Biodiversity Act (SG, 77 / 2002 (as amended)
256
5113 500
10 000 511
10 225
Min. Max.
Min. Max. 5 years
Penalty Code (Art. 278d)
2500
5000 2500
5000 2500
5000 2500
5000 Min. Max.
Min. Max. 5 years
CY Law on the Protection and Management of Nature and Wildlife (No. 153(I)/2003); Customs Code (No. 4[1])/2004)
ca. 17 000 ca. 17 000 Min. Max. 3 years
Min. Max. 3 years
No provision for extra-judicial fines. The fines indicated here are judicial fines only
107
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
CZ Act No. 100/2004 Coll., on the Trade in Endangered Species, 2004
ca. 55 600 (Ind. and OCGs)
Unlimited (Ind. and OCGs)
ca. 55 600 (Ind. and OCGs)
Unlimited (Ind. and OCGs)
Min. Max.
Min. Max.
Minimum and maximum fines are not set and therefore can be unlimited.
Act No. 40/2009 Coll., the Criminal Code
Min. Max. 1 year OCG: Min. 6 months Max. 2 years
Min. Max. 3 years OCG: Min. 5 years Max. 8 years
DE Federal Nature Conservation Acts, §69, 71 and 71a; §71a para 2 and 4; §46-47, 51, 72; Criminal Code
50 000
50 000 500 000 (Neg.) 1 000 000 (Int.)
Min. Max.
Min. Max. 3 years(I) 5 years(I)
(I) Max. 5 years imprisonment for Appendix I listed species; Max. 3 years for other species.
DK Nature Protection Act (2016)
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Min. Max.
Min. Max. 1 year
Fines depend on EC Annex where species is listed and market value; fines especially high for violations with a commercial purpose; additional claims for transport, storage etc. of seized specimens possible.
Ministry of Environment and Food Statuary Order No. 935 (2016)
Min. Max. 1 year
Min. Max. 1 year
No set minimum or maximum sanctions based on Statuary Order
108
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
EE Nature Conservation Law (2004); supp. by Code of Misdem. Proc. Customs Act (2004), Animal Protection Act (2001)
1200 (Ind. and OCGs)
3200 (Individuals and OCGs)
Min. Max.
Min. Max.
Reg of the Government 08.04.2005 No. 69
Compensation for environmental damage caused by infringement of 338/97. Minimum compensation is EUR 13 and maximum EUR 64 000 (depends on the species and specimens). These are not fines, but compensation rates for environmental damages.
Penal Code § 357 & 44
Pecuniary punishment with no limit
Pecuniary punishment with no limit
Min. Max. 3 years
Min. Max. 5 years OCG: Min. 1 year Max. 5 years
For attempts of evading detection; maximum sentence for infringement carried out by a group, or by officials taking advantage of their position
EL Law 4042/2012 (Directive 2008/99//EC)
3000 150 000 (Neg.) 500 000 (Int.)
3000 150 000 (Neg.) 500 000 (Int.)
3000 150 000 (Neg.) 500 000 (Int.)
3000 150 000 (Neg.) 500 000 (Int.)
Min. Max. 5 years
Min. Max. 20 years
Forest Authorities impose the administrative fines. The courts decide whether the imprisonment will be imposed
Law 2637/1998 and Legislative Decree 86/1969 (as amended)
1 500 30 000 1 500 30 000 1 500 30 000 1 500 30 000 Min. 1 month Max. 2 years
Forest Authorities impose the administrative fines. The courts decide whether the imprisonment will be imposed
109
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
EL Customs Code Law 2960/2001
3000(I)
3000(2)
3000(I)
3000(2)
3000(I)
3000(2)
3000(I)
3000(2)
Min. 6 months Max. 5 years
Min. 6 months Max. 5 years
(I) only for live animals or EUR 750 for specimens or samples of wild fauna and flora (2) only for live animals or 5 times the amount of duties and taxes for specimens or samples of wild fauna and flora
ES Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November Arts. 332, 334 & 339
4 months(I) (Neg.) 8 months (Int.) (2)
8 months(I) (Neg.) 24 months (Int.) (2)
Min. 3 months Max. 1 year
Min. 6 months (3) Max. 2 years (3)
(I) Fines based on day rates. In addition, disqualification from profession or trade for a period of 3 months to 2 years. (2) Fines based on day rates. In addition, disqualification from profession or trade for a period of 6 years to 2 years (Art. 332), or 2 years to 4 years (Art. 334) (3) Disqualification from profession or trade for a period of 3 months to two years.
Organic Law 12/1995, of December 12, Arts. 2 and 3
Double to four times the value of the goods, merchandise, goods or effects(I)
6 times the value of the goods, merchandise, goods or effects
Min. Max.
Min. 1 year Max. 5 years
(I) In addition, suspension for 6 months and 2 years of import, export or trade activities in the category of goods, merchandise, goods or effects.
FI Nature Conservation Act – Sec. 58
(I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) Min. Max. 2 years
Min. 4 months
(I) Day fines imposed
110
(infringements) and 59 (forfeitures); Criminal Code
Max. 4 years (2)
(2) Forfeiture of the specimens, forfeiture of means and assets, compensations
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
FR Environmental Code, Art. L415-3 to 415-5; Environmental Code, Art. L415-6
150 000 OCG: Max. 750 000
150 000 OCG: Max. 750 000
Min. Max. 2 years
OCG: Max. 7 years
Customs Code, Article 414
The value of the specimen
Twice the value of the specimen
The value of the specimen
Twice the value of the specimen
The value of the specimen
Twice the value of the specimen
The value of the specimen
Twice the value of the specimen OCG: More than twice the value of the specimen
OCG: Max. 10 years
HR Act on Transboundary Movement and Trade in Endangered Species (OG 94/2013)
ca. 13 ca. 121 100
ca. 67 ca. 13 500 ca. 270 ca. 135 600
HU Government Decree No. 292/2008 (XII. 10.); Criminal code
Min. Max.
Min. Max. 3 years(I)
(I) For specimens listed in Annex A and B
111
IE Wildlife Acts 1976 to 2018, Section 53A
(I) 100 000(2) (I) 100 000(2) Min. Max. 6 months
Min. Max. 2 years
(I) Class A fine (2) Conviction on indictment
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
IT Law 150/92 (for Annex A specimens) Penal prosecution
(I) (I) 15 000 150 000 Min. 6 months Max. 2 years
Min. 6 months Max. 2 years
*Financial penalty for personal or household goods from EUR 6000 to EUR 30 000
Law 150/92 (for Annex B and C specimens) Penal prosecution
(I) (I) 20 000 200 000 Min. 6 months Max. 1 year
Min. 6 months Max. 1 year
(I) Financial penalty for personal or household goods from EUR 3000 to EUR 15 000
Law 150/92 - Fines
3000 15 000
LV Criminal Law (1998), as amended Art. 115' (2012)
No criminal sanctions provided for legal persons*
No criminal sanctions provided for legal persons*
Min. Max. 5 years
Administrative Violation Code (1985), as amended; Biotope Protection Law (2000)
70 700 2 years in prison
140 1400 2 years in prison
All illegally acquired specimens confiscated If poaching was deliberate, the offender must reimburse government up to 120 minimum wage (currently up to EUR 51 000).
112
LT Administrative Law Violations Code No. X-4449 (1984), supp. by various other laws
30 600(I) (I) Up to EUR 580 for illegally traded flora; up to EUR 600 for illegally traded fauna
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
LT Criminal Code Min. Max.
Min. Max. 4 years(I) (2)
(I) Up to 2 years when poaching of fauna caused damage to the species; up to 4 years when large quantities of fauna smuggled for commercial purposes (2) Up to 3 years when large quantities of fauna smuggled for commercial purposes
LU Law of 21 April 1989, amending Law 19 Feb 1975, Art. 12
Law on Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (1982) and Law Aiming to Protect the Life and Welfare of Animals (1983), Arts. 44-47
MT Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora
466 4659 466 4659 Min. Max. 1 month
Min. Max. 2 years
113
Regulations (2004, as amended)
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
MT Environment Protection Act, (CAP. 549) Art. 3(2)g
12 000(I) 1000 2 500 000(I)
Min. Max. 6 months
Min. 8 months Max. 7 years
(I) Fines imposed when serious damage is caused to the environment
NL Nature Conservation Act (Wet natuurbescherming) and underlying regulations; Nature Conservation Decree (Besluit natuurbescherming); Nature Conservation Regulation (Regeling natuurbescherming); Penal Code
78 000(I) 780 000 Min. Max. 1 year
Min. Max. 6 years
(I) Community service or a fine
PL Nature Conservation Act (2004) Art. 127-131, supp. by various laws
Nature Conservation
Min. Max.
Min. 3 months
114
Act (2004) Art. 127-131, supplemented by various laws
Max. 5 years
PT Law Decree 211/2009, Article 25/1-3
Penal Code Law (Law 56/2001 of 15.11.2011), Article 278
Min. Max.
Min. Max. 5 years(I)
(I) Up to 1 year for illegal possession; up to 2 years for illegal trade; up to 5 years for illegal killing and capture
RO Governmental Ordinance No. 57/2007 (Art. 53 (2)
1050 (RON 5000)
2100 (RON 10 000)
5200 (RON 25000)
10 500 (RON 50 000)
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
RO Governmental Ordinance No. 57/2007 regarding (Art. 53 (3)
1500 (RON 7500)
3150 (RON 1500)
10 500 (RON 50 000)
21 000 (RON 100 000)
Penal Code
SE Environmental Code, chapter 29, 2b §
(I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) Min. 6 months Max. 4 years
Min. Max. 6 years
(I) Day fines or 2 years imprisonment
Act of Penalties in Connection with Smuggling
SI Nature Conservation
115
Act (2004), Art. 160, 161
Decree (Ur. l. RS, No. 39/2008), Art. 45
Act implementing the Customs regulations of the European Community
Criminal Code (Ur. l. RS, No. 55/2008, last updated in 2012 (Ur. l. RS, No. 50/2012)
100
300 100 300 200 10 000 200 10 000 Fines are higher for individual traders or the responsible legal person.
MS Legislation Fines (natural person) (EUR)
Fines (legal person) (EUR)
Imprisonment Notes
Administrative Criminal Administrative Criminal Negligence Intent
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
SK Act No. 15/2005 as amended (Art. 22 - 25)
19 916 80 66 000
Act No. 199/2004 on Customs Law as amended (Art. 74, 80)
3319 (I) 99 519 (I) (I) According to Act No 199/2004 only administrative offences are punished (not criminal offences)
Criminal Code No. 300/2005 as amended (Art. 56, 305) and Criminal Procedure
(2) (2) 160 331 930 (2) (2) 1500 1 600 000 Min. Max. 8 years OCG: Min. 1 year Max. 8 years
Min. Max. 8 years OCG: Min. 1 year Max. 8 years
(2) According to the Criminal Code, only criminal offences are punished (not administrative offences)
116
Code No.301/2005
UK Control of Trade in Endangered Species (COTES) (summary conviction)
5700 (GBP 5000)
5700 (GBP 5000)
Min. Max. 6 months (1)
Min. Max. 6 months*
(1) Imprisonment for a maximum term of six months or a fine, or both
Control of Trade in Endangered Species (COTES) (conviction on indictment)
5700 (GBP 5000)
5700 (GBP 5000)
Min. Max. 5 years (1)
Min. Max. 5 years*
*Imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or a fine or both
117
ANNEX 7: Abbreviations CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CMS Convention on Migratory Species
COM Management Committee
CoP Conference of the Parties
EA Enforcement Group
EC European Community
EPIX Electronic Permit Information eXchange
EU European Union
EU-TWIX EU Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange
ICCWC International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime
MA Management Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
SA Scientific Authority
SRG Scientific Review Group
WCO Worlds Customs Organisation
118
EU 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