The European Union and wildlife trafficking

As apparently legislative EU measures to improve the fight against wildlife trafficking will not be taken in the foreseeable future, other, non-legislative, measures will have to be considered in order to improve the situation. The responses to the Commission consultation of 2014 which were summarised above, offer many proposals for such measures.

There is, however, one aspect which might deserve closer attention: in many areas, the Commission has established specialised agencies with the task of dealing with day-to-day, administrative matters. These agencies, which normally have no decision-making power, allow the Commission to concentrate on political questions but are able, because of their specialisation, to maintain close contacts with stakeholders, discuss their problems and advise the Commission (and Member States) on practical measures to take.

Another similar approach is taken in the area of trans-European networks for transport and energy. The relevant EU legislation laid down the major political lines for these networks and established corridors within which the specific energy or transport projects were to be realised. For such corridors, "coordinators" were appointed (Articles 45 to 48 of Regulation 1315/2013 (trans-European transport network) and Article 6 of Regulation 347/2013 (trans-European energy network)), with the task of promoting dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, assisting and advising parties, ensuring support and strategic direction by Member States and presenting an annual report on the progress achieved.

It should be considered whether the enforcement of Regulation 338/97 and the fight against wildlife trafficking would be promoted, if there were an EU coordinator for these tasks, whether she is called a coordinator, a wildlife Ombudsman or otherwise (the Commission in the Summary of the responses to the stakeholder consultation on the EU approach against wildlife trafficking mentioned that some NGOs had suggested appointing a coordinator for the implementation of any EU action plan against wildlife trafficking). Such a person could undertake to bring together different strings in the enforcement chain, discuss with public authorities (customs, police, prosecutors, judiciary) and private stakeholders about practical problems in the fight against wildlife trafficking. The fact that she has no decision-making powers would exclude rivalry or jealousy by Member States and stakeholders, but the possibility to address practical problems in the annual report or in advice to the Commission might give such a person sufficient authority to be heard and listened to.