“Good morning. Thank you very much Chair, honorable members. Thank you very much for the invitation to this exchange of views. It's a pleasure to be here today to present and discuss the findings of a study which we commissioned and which is a deliverable under the EU action plan against wildlife trafficking. Let me begin by recalling the broader context. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES, has been the cornerstone of international efforts to regulate wildlife trade since 1975. Under CITES, trading species is subject to varying levels of control, permits, and/or bans depending on their conservation status. At present, around 4,900 species are listed in the three appendices to CITES. The aim is clear: to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their conservation and survival. However, INTERPOL estimates that wildlife trafficking is the fourth largest form of transnational organized crime worldwide, with an annual value of up to 2 billion US dollars. But these are two important caveats to keep in mind when we only focus on CITES-listed wildlife. First, even with the over 40,000 species that are covered by CITES, this represents less than one percent of all described species on our planet. Second, it must be assumed that trade in non-CITES species is at least between three and eleven times higher than trade in CITES-listed species, depending on the taxa. Lastly, illegal wildlife trade goes far beyond CITES-listed species. Within the EU, we have evidence of trade in non-CITES wildlife that is illegally sourced, poached from protected areas, or taken in violation of national laws. As far as we can tell, this trade is facilitated by online marketplaces, increasingly linked to organized crime, and appears to be on the rise. Recognizing the urgency of combating wildlife trafficking, the European Commission adopted the revised EU action plan against wildlife trafficking in November 2022. This provides a comprehensive framework for tackling wildlife trafficking, ensuring that EU policies are consistent with our international commitments and based on the best available evidence. Action nineteen of this action plan calls on the Commission to explore whether existing measures are sufficient or whether new tools are needed to reduce unsustainable trade in wildlife. Among other options is the possible criminalization of all trade in illegally sourced wildlife. It is in this context that the Commission commissioned a study in late 2023, which was finalized and published in June of this year. The study examines the feasibility of different legislative and non-legislative options, their potential benefits and impacts, and the challenges of implementation. It draws on extensive consultation with stakeholders ranging from Europol, OLAF, INTERPOL, and the World Customs Organization to Member State CITES authorities, NGOs, and industry associations. Miss Falco, one of the authors of the study, will shortly present the study in greater detail. But before she does, I would like to underline one important point: this was an exploratory study. The Commission will analyze the findings carefully and in conjunction with the views of stakeholders before considering any potential next steps. This means that the study conclusions do not predetermine any future legislative or non-legislative measures. The Commission remains ready to continue the dialogue and constructive engagement with all stakeholders on these related measures. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the two consultants that performed this study, which were Trinomics and Law and Wildlife, for the diligent work and the commitment in the research. With that, I will now hand over the floor to Miss Falco for a more detailed presentation of this study. Thank you.”
Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Environmental crimes and justice
“That's it. Thank you very much. I want to thank the honorable members that have raised their voice in this committee on this topic. It's good to see that there are some that consider this a priority and an important topic to be discussed, like we do at least in my service in the Commission. There have been a couple of questions, some of them related to this study and the connection of this study with other work that we are doing, in particular another study that we have on a positive list of exotic pets as well as a demand reduction pilot project. There was a question by honorable member Ripa whether we consider that we have to look at demand and supply together, and absolutely. That's one of the reasons for this pilot project. The three topics are related although we are looking at them with different angles. We'll need to put together the results of all these studies and pilot projects to see what's the way forward in terms of the work on the positive list of exotic pets, which would have been finalized by now but it has a slight delay due to the longer consultation, the longer time it took to do the consultations. We are expecting to have something by November this year, so before the COP, so we can, after the COP, together with the results of this study, start to think about the next steps. On the demand reduction pilot project, we will have a preliminary consultation on the roundtable on the preliminary results by the 28th of October. So as you can see, we are trying to get all this work finalized by this year and then see next year to put it all together and see what are the next steps. I think I have already expressed that this study was exploratory, so it's not already putting us in any commitment to go into a certain action or legislative action. However, having said that, it has very important results and conclusions. I think we all have seen that the lack of data, the lack of robust data, is a prerequisite for any further policy action. So we need to improve the data gaps and how to do that has been mentioned by some of you honorable members but also by Miss Falco, how we can use existing systems such as TRACES to get there in terms of improving the data that we have. It's evident that adapting existing systems is much more efficient. In fact, systems that are working and giving good results, it's much more efficient and effective than creating something entirely new. We of course need to look at the cost, the benefits, and the technical complexities that this will require, and that this will of course require that we work hand in hand with DG SANTE, which is running TRACES. Just to put some concerns to rest when we are talking about this lack of information and the lack of clarity or the lack of criminalization of wildlife trade from illegally sourced wildlife trade, do not confuse this with CITES. I mean, we have strong international and European legislation on CITES on the trade of species that are whose survival is at risk. So everything that when we are facing species that has poor conservation status or is at risk of extinction, this should be the priority of the European Union to be listed under CITES at international level and then protected also through European law. So we don't expect that this discussion that we are having here today would actually lead to the extinction of the species, but we recognize that there are many other aspects related to the protection, related to biodiversity, ethical concerns, and health, of course. Some of you have mentioned the synopsis. While there are very important considerations, let us not confuse extinction level concerns with those that we are exchanging here today. This is what I wanted to share with you. Some of you have asked what are going to be our next steps. As I said, we are now prioritizing the work for the COP. Although some of us here consider this a very important topic and a high priority, we do have some very strong resource constraints in the Commission to carry this dossier. After the COP, we'll look at the results of all the studies that I have mentioned, including the pilot project, and try to devise the way ahead. We will not do this without consultation of stakeholders and, of course, without consultation of this committee. Thank you very much.”
Trade impact on forests · Environmental crimes and justice