As it was announced, yesterday, the MEPs for
Wildlife Group together with Born Free held a
Conference in the European Parliament about wildlife trafficking. At the
occasion, Born Free announced its latest report "End Wildlife Trafficking" which
presents a number of recommendations for an EU Action Plan on illegal wildlife
trade.
Indeed, the main focus of the conference was to
support the drafting of an EU Action Plan to combat illegal wildlife trade, and
for this purpose several speakers were invited to present the situation.
NGOs like WWF, Wildlife SOS and LAGA explained the scale of illegal wildlide trade in
Latin America, South Asia and Africa respectively. At the same time, there was
a representative of the Belgian Border Agency who talked about the Customs'
activities at Brussels Airport and an officer from UNODC who presented the
conclusions on the 12 studies that have been done so far based on the ICCWC Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit (none
of them in the EU by the way). Finally, MEPs from the Wildlife Group also made
some statements supporting the idea of an Action Plan.
The representative of the European Commission updated
the audience on the latest activities towards enhancing the fight against
illegal wildlife trade. He notably announced the cooperation of Member States
under the coordination of EUROPOL in a cover operation as well as the new rules
on import of hunting trophies. Judges and prosecutors as well as the business
sector are also being involved in these matters.
During the whole session the great majority of the
speakers called for a new EU Action Plan to be developed by the European
Commission, and I believe this deserves some thoughts:
The EU Wildlife Trade legislation dates back to 1997
with the adoption of the so-called Basic Regulation. In 2007, the European
Commission adopted a Commission Recommendation on enforcement identifying a set
of actions to enhance and improve enforcement measures at the level of Member
States to implement the Basic Regulation.
Some of these Recommendations were
called for in one way or another one year ago as a result of the public
consultation and the Conference organised by the European Commission and
yesterday. Some of them are (and I cite from the 2007 Recommendation):
imposing sufficiently high penalties for wildlife
trade offences; ensuring that all relevant enforcement agencies have adequate
financial and personnel resources and that they have access to specialized
equipment and relevant expertise; carrying out training or awareness
raising activities for enforcement agencies, prosecution services and the
judiciary; ensuring that all relevant enforcement agencies have access to
adequate training; ensuring in-country enforcement; establishing procedures
for coordinating enforcement among all their relevant national authorities; facilitating
access for relevant enforcement officers to existing resources, tools and
channels of communication for the exchange of information; sharing
relevant information about significant trends, seizures and court cases at the
regular meetings of the Enforcement Group as well as intersessionally; co-operating
with relevant enforcement agencies in other Member States on investigations of
offences under Regulation (EC) No 338/97; exchanging information on
penalties for wildlife trade offences to ensure consistency in
application; liaising closely with CITES Management Authorities and law
enforcement agencies in source, transit and consumer countries outside of the
Community as well as the CITES Secretariat, INTERPOL and the WCO to help
detect, deter and prevent illegal trade in wildlife through the exchange of
information and intelligence.
Probably, the only
elements missing in 2007 were the need to link illegal wildlife trade to
transnational organised crime, to money laundering and to corruption, and the request
to enhance the role of EUROPOL.
One may think:
If the needs were clear in 2007, why are we still
demanding the same things in 2015?
To answer this question we have to turn our heads to
the addresses of these recommendations, the EU Member States, and see what has
been done at their level.
Unfortunately I could not find any document related
to the monitoring of the implementation of these Recommendations, probably
because they are just that: Recommendations. However, in the course of my
research on enforcement measures in three EU Member States, I can say that two
out of three fall short of having implemented any of these points.
At the same
time, I was unable to find any indication on the Member States’ performance in
relation to the Wildlife Basic Regulation, or any Court case on the infringement
of Member States obligations. One may conclude that little implementation has
been done at their level, as one MEP mentioned yesterday.
Even EUROPOL has noted that little information coming
from Member States reaches them regarding wildlife crime (as often such crimes are
not investigated by police). This information is vital for the Agency to raise
environmental crime and wildlife trafficking as a priority in the EU in its EU
Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment, which is the document that
serves as the guide to determine EUROPOL’s areas of action. Without the
information coming from the Member States the involvement of EUROPOL is less
likely.
Taking this into consideration:
do we really need yet another an Action Plan with a
long list of requests that Member States are unable to fulfil?
Some have called for a stronger line from the
European Commission, but one has to be realistic: on the one hand, its powers
are established in the Lisbon Treaty, and the Commission cannot go beyond what
is in their remit. Even if it could, it was made clear yesterday that the new
Commission is still considering the necessity of such a Plan in the light of
its priorities:
growth, jobs and investments. It should be expected that an Action Plan will
not receive much support on that side.
Having said that, the statement of the representative
of the Belgian CITES Management Authority yesterday is also very true: an
Action Plan could help to raise awareness and increase the profile of illegal
wildlife trade at national level, hopefully mobilising the necessary political
will and resources to start taking action.
MEP Catherine Bearder started the second session asking:
how can the Commission, the Parliament and the Council (the Member States) work
together to change the situation? Difficult to answer. It is clear that there
are now a number of committed MEPs ready to raise the political profile of illegal
wildlife trade, and this is a promising start.
I believe that rather than insisting on an Action
Plan, ways should be found to bring the Member States on board and assist them
in implementing selected recommendations.
Maybe one way to do so is inviting
them to discuss within the EU Enforcement Group if and how they have advanced
with the 2007 Recommendation and what are their most problematic issues. At the
same time, I believe there is plenty of room for the MEPS for Wildlife Group to
request for specific studies and organise targeted mini conferences on the
points identified inviting experts in the field and all stakeholders involved.
I certainly hope that those empty seats yesterday could be filled with
Member State’s representatives next time! This is a combat worth fighting for, and yesterday I could only see committed people, ready to give their best and to stand a long fight. Great conference and great speakers!
-
No comments:
Post a Comment