Illegal killing, trapping and trade survey among EU BirdLife Partners

Rastislav Rybanic, BirdLife International

Conservation

Sustainable hunting

Birds Directive

Enforcement

Content

Sustainable Hunting Initiative BirdLife International and FACE Agreement Data collection and analysis Results of illegal activities survey among

BirdLife Partner organisations Results Recommendations Points to discuss and next steps

Sustainable Hunting Initiative (2001)

Point 7. Encourage trainings and education campaigns for hunters as well as initiatives to control illegal hunting activities:”Illegal activities (shooting protected species, use of

illegal trapping devices, shooting out of season or in prohibited areas, illegal use of poisons) are against the ‘principle of wise use’, a key element of the Birds Directive and are not in accordance with the principle of conservation through sustainable use.“

”Furthermore, the illegal actions of a small number of hunters can also bring the whole activity of hunting into serious disrepute. As hunters are the most effective custodians of the hunted areas it is in their long term interests to increasingly oppose such activities and to be seen to do so.“

BirdLife – FACE Agreement (2004)

Point 8 - Both organisations call upon the competent authorities to take appropriate initiatives to ensure the respect of all bird conservation legislation, in particular through proper enforcement but also by education and awareness raising initiatives. They offer their assistance in this respect.

BirdLife and FACE work jointly on addressing illegal activities against birds

Joint work started with collecting overview information though BirdLife Partner organisations

Data collected among 27 BirdLife Partners in All EU Member States

Questionnaire developed with FACE listing different types of illegal activities

For the most important types of illegal activities respondents were asked to rate:

Scale on national level Conservation impact Quality of evidence Medium and long term trend -

Data collection and analysis (1)

Analysed together to asses the importance

Trends assessed to complete the picture

Scale of illegal activities: From local / rare (1) to widespread / abundant (5)

Conservation impact on the species / populations concerned: From very low (1) to very high (5)

Quality of evidence about the activities: From poor quality based on anecdotal evidence (1) to good quality based

on official data (5)

Scale, conservation impact scores were combined and weighted by quality of evidence to get information about relative importance of an activity in a country

Long (20 years) and Medium term trend (10 years): From activity decreased a lot (1) to activity increased a lot (5)

Species involved in this activity: Respondents were asked to list the species involved

Data collection and analysis (2)

Inherently there is some overlap between the illegal activities categories

As there is different level of data gathering involvement of BirdLife organisations - the results might be biased towards those where appropriate capacity is devoted to data collection and problem analysis ( e.g. UK situation)

The scale and conservation impact of illegal activities are difficult to compare between different countries (e.g. France vs. Cyprus)

The assessment of the situation provided by BirdLife organisations clearly reflects their level of involvement in these issues

Limitations of the survey

Main Results

26 BirdLife Partners participated in the survey

242 data lines about reported illegal activities from all respondents gathered (this dataset is further analysed)

Only in one Member State reported no real problems with illegal activities (Luxembourg)

Information for Belgium covers only Flanders

Illegal activities by category

24%

17%10%

10%

9%

30%

Killing / taking of birds byunauthorised persons

Killing / taking in areas where it isforbidden

Killing / taking of birds outside thelegal open season

Illegal international/national tradeof birds

Illegal methods and meanstaking/killing birds (most reported -poisioning)Killing /taking of protected species(most reported - predatorpersecution)

Results – share of reported illegal activities

54% killing/taking protected species and using illegal methods

Results – Share of reported types of illegal activities

Reported illegal activities by type

3%2%3%

10%

5%5%

7%

9%

9%9%

10%

10%

9%9%

Other types of illegal activitiesRandom killing of protected species Killing for consumptionIllegal firearmsTaking for keeping birds aliveKilling for recreation / sport / huntingIllegal traps, nets, lime stick etc.International Illegal tradeNational unregulated tradeKilling for predator controlUse of poisonsKilling / taking by unauthorised personsKilling / taking in areas where it is forbiddenKilling / taking outside the open season

In more detailed breakdown by activity types, patterns are less clear

0 50 100 150 200

Other types of killing/taking

Other types of illegal methods

Taking for egg collections

Killing for collecting specimen

Illegal means of transport

Taking for keeping birds alive

Killing / taking by unauthorised persons

Killing for consumption

Random killing of protected species

Killing / taking outside the open season

National unregulated trade

International Illegal trade

Illegal f irearms

Killing for recreation / sport / hunting

Killing / taking in areas w here it is forbidden

Illegal traps, nets, lime stick etc.

Killing for predator control

Use of poisons

RelativeimportanceConservationimpactScale

Quality ofevidence

Scoreshmic

Results – importance, impact and scale of activities

Results - scale of illegal activities in some countries

Conservation impact

Quality of evidenceAverage Quality of evidence of illegal activities

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5

Belgium (Flanders)Latvia

FinlandPortugal

FranceCzech Republic

SloveniaIrelandAustriaPolandGreece

DanmarkSpain

SlovakiaGermanyLithuaniaRomaniaBulgariaHungaryCyprusEstonia

UKNetherlands

SwedenItaly

EU Average

Long term trend of illegal activities

Average EU trend stable

Mid term trend of illegal activities

Average EU trend - moderate increse

Main species targeted by illegal activities

Illegal shooting for hunting/sport purposes: Mainly waterfowl (incl. red listed ones like Red-

breasted Goose) Persecution of predators:

Birds of prey (incl. red listed ones as Peregrine, Saker Falcon or Imperial Eagle), Cormorants, Herons, Pelicans

Poisoning: Mainly birds of prey, Vultures Trapping for keeping or consumption: Passerines

– finches, warblers, thrushes, falcons etc.

Targeted species visualised by www.wordle.com

Next steps under BirdLife - FACE agreement

BirdLife will supply this information to FACE (end June 2010)

FACE will share and discuss with their Members - how they can address these issues in respective countries (autumn 2010)

Cooperation with authorities and other stakeholders on national level would be helpful if feasible

Priority areas to address Illegal activities against birds still exist within the EU and

the information suggest that different types of problem persists

Following areas appears to be the most problematic: Use of poisons Killing for predator control Illegal traps, nets, lime stick etc. Killing / taking in areas where it is forbidden Killing for recreation / sport / hunting Illegal trade Killing for consumption

Awareness and proper enforcement of existing laws needs to be addressed depending on different situations in Member States

Recommendations As this problem is complex, the situation needs to be assessed

on national level in each Member State together with main stakeholders to define the best way how to proceed

All possible stakeholders groups should be involved in tackling these problems – not only hunters and conservationists (e.g. taxidermists, bird fanciers, farmers, fisherman...)

Better awareness of various groups would enable hunting organisations and authorities to take appropriate action

All enforcement forces on national level including Police forces and courts need to be fully involved in tackling these problems on national level

Install better systems for collection of evidence (e.g. dedicated databases/options to filter illegal activities within existing databases)

Hunting organisations and national authorities needs to lead in addressing these problem

Points to discuss What is the view of this situation in

particular Member States? Are there any positive examples to be

shared among the Member States? What should be the role of the

Commission and main stakeholders like BirdLife and FACE in tackling these problems?

Thank you for your attention !

Conservation

Sustainable hunting

Birds Directive

Enforcement